Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3542

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, J, M.L. Srivastava, Administrative Member
Anand Kumar Savalam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s P. Ayyamperumal
For the Respondents: Mr. Su.Srinivasan, SCGSC

Similarly situated employees entitled to parity in pay scale upgradation under 5th CPC; notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with actual benefits from 21.04.2004, judgments in rem override limitation for recurring pay claims.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 - 5th Central Pay Commission - Pay scale revision for Inspectors/Customs Examiners/Preventive Officers (Rs.6500-10500) and Superintendents/Appraisers (Rs.7500-12000) - Upgradation effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 - Applicant sought quashing of orders limiting benefits from 21.04.2004 and grant of notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with arrears and 18% interest - Tribunal held that similarly situated employees entitled to parity under Article 14, judgments in rem applicable across employees, delay not bar as pay fixation recurring cause of action - Directed notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004. (Paras 21, 32, 34, 40)

(B) Service Law - Parity and equality - Similarly situated employees must be treated alike; benefit granted to some via judicial orders or anomaly committee recommendations extends to others - Department cannot treat judgments as in personam or deny parity arbitrarily. (Paras 32, 35)

(C) Limitation - Fence-sitters and delay - No bar under Section 21 where claim based on recurring pay fixation and recent implementations following higher court orders; representations post anomaly committee report furnish cause of action. (Paras 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
Applicant joined as Customs Examiner in 1993, promoted to Appraiser in 2002 and Assistant Commissioner in 2014. Pre-01.01.1996 scales were Rs.1640-2900 (Examiner) and Rs.2000-3500 (Appraiser). Post-5th CPC, scales upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.7500-12000 but effective only from 21.04.2004 per office memoranda. Applicant challenged this, citing precedents granting notional benefits w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to similarly placed employees in other departments/benches, anomaly committee recommendations implemented retrospectively for some, and over 1500 implementations across tribunals. Respondents opposed on grounds of limitation, fence-sitting, and judgments being in personam.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders set aside; respondents directed to refix pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally per Revised Pay Rules, 1997, with consequential benefits in Inspector/Superintendent grades on notional basis from 01.01.1996 and actual monetary basis from 21.04.2004, exercise within two months. (Para 40)

Issues: (i) Entitlement to notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 or only actual benefits from 21.04.2004; (ii) Applicability of parity to similarly situated employees despite prior judgments; (iii) Bar of limitation under Section 21 for delayed OA.

Ratio Decidendi: Denial of retrospective pay benefits to similarly placed employees violates Article 14 equality; judicial precedents and anomaly committee recommendations operate in rem, binding uniformly; pay revision anomaly rectification entitles notional fixation from 01.01.1996 with actual benefits from upgradation date; delay immaterial for recurring pay claims post-implementations. (Paras 28, 32, 34, 38-39)

Result: OA allowed on above terms; no costs.

Table of Content
1. applicant's career progression and pay scale history. (Para 2)
2. precedents support pay revision from 01.01.1996. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. oa barred by limitation and laches. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. anomaly committee recommendations for cbdt and cbic. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. similarly situated employees entitled to parity. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. notional pay from 1996, actual from 2004. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
7. oa allowed with specified pay fixation directions. (Para 41)

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

The applicant has filed the OA seeking the following relief:

“A) ….To call for records and proceedings of the case which led to the passing of the orders I.e (I) Office Memorandum in File No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.04.2004 ie Annexure -A1 and (ii) Office Memorandum in File No.2-26017/65/2003-Ad.II- A(Pt) dated 11.05.2004 i.e Annexure A.2 its subsequent (latest) Office Memorandum in File No. A.26017/65/2003-Ad.II-A(Pt)25.07.2023i.e Annexure A3, (iii)against the speaking order dated 12.08.2025 (Issued F.No.GCCO/II/24/51/2025-CAO- O/o PrCC-CGST-Zone-Chennai) of the 4^th respondent (Annexure A-5) and after going though their propriety, legality and constitutional validity be pleased o quash and set aside the same only to the extent it makes the revised pay scale effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996, with further directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of revised scale/grade w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with appropriate pay fixation and actual benefit i.e. grant of Rs.65000-10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to the Customs Examiner(Applicant) and Rs.7500-12000/- wef 01.01.1996 to Appraiser (applicant) along with actual arrears of pay with 18% interest thereon.

B) To hold and declare that the impugned action of the respondents to revise and pay scale from 21.04.2004 (Annexure-A1) is absolutely arbitrary and illegal and accordingly hold, declare and direct the respondents that the Inspector/Customs Examiner and Superintendent/Appraisers are entitled to the revised pay scales of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f.01.01.1996 to Inspector and Rs.7500-12000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Superintendent/Appraiser with all consequential benefits i.e proper pay fixation, and actual arrears of salary, with 18% interest thereon

C) Any other and further additional orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the natural and circumstances of the case may be passed.

D) Cost of the application be provided for.”

2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows:

The applicant joined as Customs Examiner on 10.02.1993 and promoted to the post of Appraiser on 25.11.2002 and as Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Excise on 22.10.2014. Prior to 01.01.1996, the pay scale of Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Customs Examiners was Rs. 1640–2900. On promotion to the post of Superintendent/Appraiser, the applicable pay scale was Rs. 2000–3500. Upon implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of Inspectors/Customs Examiners/Preventive Officers was revised to Rs. 6500–10500, and that of Superintendents/Appraisers was revised to Rs. 7500–12000. However, the revised pay scales were made effective from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996, the date on which the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission came into effect. Despite various decisions rendered by Tribunals and High Courts across the country, and finally by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the benefit of the revised pay scales of Rs. 6500–10500 for Inspectors/Customs Examiners/Preventive Officers and Rs. 7500– 12000 for Superintendents/Appraisers were denied to the applicant. Hence, the present OA.

3. The learned Counsel for the applicant invited our attention to the common order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 1089/2019 & batch, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3542

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALM. Swaminathan, J, M.L. Srivastava, Administrative MemberAnand Kumar Savalam – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA

Similarly situated employees entitled to parity in pay scale upgradation under 5th CPC; notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with actual benefits from 21.04.2004, judgments in rem override limitation for recurring pay claims.

Cases Referred (3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, J, M.L. Srivastava, Administrative Member
Anand Kumar Savalam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA