Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5245

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member, M. L. Srivastava, Administrative Member
N. Arunaasalam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. R. Arumugam
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC.

Similarly situated employees entitled to notional revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 per 5th CPC anomaly rectification; actual benefits from 21.04.2004; parity violations under Article 14 extend judgments in rem across department.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 - 5th Central Pay Commission - Pay scales for Inspectors and Superintendents in Central Tax and Customs Department - Applicant sought revised pay scales effective from 01.01.1996 instead of 21.04.2004 - Tribunal held that similarly situated employees entitled to notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004, relying on Special Anomaly Committee recommendations and consistent judicial pronouncements across Tribunals and High Courts - Denial of parity violates Article 14 - Judgments in rem extend benefits to all similarly placed employees - Fence-sitters not barred where recurring cause of action exists and department implemented benefits post judicial directions - Impugned orders quashed to extent restricting effective date to 21.04.2004. (Paras 21, 28, 32, 34, 40)

(B) Service Law - Pay Parity and Anomaly Rectification - Once Special Anomaly Committee constituted for one board under common department recommends retrospective notional fixation, no separate committee needed for allied board - Uniform application mandated across similarly situated employees - Subsequent judgments or implementations do not revive limitation for stale claims absent continuing wrong - However, pay fixation constitutes recurring cause of action. (Paras 6, 24, 30)

(C) Limitation - Delay and Laches - Claims not barred where arising from accepted pay commission anomaly rectified post prolonged litigation - Department bound to extend benefits suo motu to all eligible after final judicial affirmations. (Paras 13, 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, appointed as Inspector, promoted to Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner, superannuated seeking notional revised pay scales of Rs.6500-10500 for Inspectors and Rs.7500-12000 for Superintendents w.e.f. 01.01.1996 per 5th Pay Commission, denied by respondents limiting to 21.04.2004 despite representations and implementations in other cases.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders set aside; respondents directed to refix pay notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and grant actual monetary benefits including arrears and pensionary benefits w.e.f. 21.04.2004 within two months.

Issues: Entitlement to revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996; applicability of parity from anomaly committee recommendations; limitation under Section 21; in rem vs in personam nature of prior judgments.

Ratio Decidendi: Similarly situated employees entitled to uniform notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 following anomaly rectification under common department; parity under Article 14 mandates extension beyond original litigants; recurring pay fixation obviates delay bar.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's service history and pay scale grievance. (Para 1 , 2)
2. precedents support pay revision from 01.01.1996. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. claims barred by limitation and laches. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. historical litigation and anomaly committee formation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. equality mandates benefits for similarly situated employees. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. notional pay from 1996, actual from 2004. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)

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

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

(A) This Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for records and proceedings of the case which led to issuing in the impugned letter bearing (a) F.No.A26017/50/2025-Ad.IIA, dated 04.08.2025, issued by the 1st respondent Authority (b) F. No. II/(24)/OTH/79/2025-ADMN/7371, dated 19.08.2025, issued by the 3rd respondent Authority and (c) DRI No. A-21021/05/2023-Chennai dated 28.08.2025 (A-10) issued by the 4th respondent authority and after going through their propriety, legality and constitutional validity be pleased to quash and set aside the same only to the extent it makes the revised pay scale effective from 31.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 with further directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of revised pay scale/grade w.e.f 01.01.1996 with appropriate pay and pension fixation and actual benefit i.e., grant of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Inspector (Central Excise, Preventive Officers/Examiners of Customs) and Rs.7500-12000 w.e.f 01.01.1996 to Superintendent/Appraiser (Central Excise & Customs) as requested vide their representations (A-6) along with actual arrears of pay and pension with 18% interest thereon.

(B) The Tribunal may graciously be pleased to hold and declare that the impugned action of the respondents in refusing to revise the pay scale from 21.04.2004 instead of 01.01.1996 is absolutely arbitrary and illegal and accordingly hold, declare and direct the respondents authorities that the Inspectors/Preventive Officers/Examiners and Superintendents (Central Excise & Customs)/Appraisers are entitled to the revised pay scales of RS.6500-10500 w.e.f 01.01.1996 to Inspector/Preventive Officers/Examiners (Central Excise & Customs) and Rs.7500-12000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Superintendent/Appraisers (Central Excise & Customs) with all consequential benefits i.e., proper pay fixation, pension fixation, actual arrears of salary, pension and other retiral dues with

18% interest thereon.

(C) Cost of this Original application be paid by the respondents (D) any other and further additional orders as this Tribunal deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case may be passed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant:

The Applicant was appointed in the respondent department as Inspector on direct recruitment basis on 22.05.1982, promoted to the cadre of Superintendent on 30.06.2000 and finally promoted to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 22.10.2014 and posted as Assistant Director at the 5th respondent office. The Applicant superannuated from service on 31.10.2016 from the office of the 5th respondent and was granted regular pension. Prior to 01.01.1996, the scale of Inspectors was Rs.1640-2900 and on promotion as Superintendent was Rs.2000-7200. The 5th Pay commission recommended revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 to the post of Inspectors and Rs.7500-12000 to the post of superintendents. This was made effective from 21.04.2004 supra instead effective date of 01.01.1996, the date on which the proposal of 5% pay commission came into effect. That benefit of pay scales (w.e.f. 0101.1996) of scale of Rs.6500-10500 to the post of Inspectors and Rs.7500-12000/- to the post of superintendents extended to each applicant herein were denied despite various decisions of the Tribunals, High Courts etc., across

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5245

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALM. Swaminathan, Judicial Member, M. L. Srivastava, Administrative MemberN. Arunaasalam – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA

Similarly situated employees entitled to notional revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 per 5th CPC anomaly rectification; actual benefits from 21.04.2004; parity violations under Article 14 extend judgments in rem across department.

Cases Referred (4)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member, M. L. Srivastava, Administrative Member
N. Arunaasalam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA