TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 2080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re A-01) as arbitrary, discriminatory and thus illegal; ii) Direct the Respondents to pay to the applicant Assistant Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Superintendent of Central Excise/Superintendents of Customs/Appraisers under Department of Revenue of Ministry of Finance replacement scale(s) viz. Rs. 6500 x 10,500 & Rs.7,500-Rs.12,000/- on notional basis from 01.01.1996 and actual basis w.e.f.21.04.2004 with all consequential benefits as made vide F.No.C-18011/ASHIS CHAKRABORTY/2009 VNL/4743, dated 22.09.2023 including arrears of pay within a specified time limit; iii) Direct the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears on account of revision of pay; iv) Quash and or set aside the Kolkata South Commissionerate letter dated 07.12.2023 impugned Estt. Order No.12/2024, date 12.01.2024 and Haldia Commissionerate letter, dated 12.01.2024; v) Pass such other direction or directions order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice." 2. Brief facts of this case are as under:- (a) These applicants were appointed mostly as Inspectors of Customs on different dates prior to 01.01.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of scale of pay. (e) All India Federation of Central Excise Officers Association had filed O.A.No.45 of 1992 and O.A.No. 63 of 1997 before the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal seeking payment of revised pay scales. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench vide orders dated 19.01.2001 in O.A.No.45 of 1992 and O.A.No. 63 of 1997 held that there was hostile discrimination in pay scales between the posts of Senior Auditors in IA & AD Department and the Assistants of Central Secretariat Staff (CSS) and directed to grant pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 (pre-revised), corresponding to revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- The said order was challenged by the Department before the High Court of Guwahati and the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati had confirmed the said order vide order dated 16.09.2022. (f) Thereafter, the Secretaries of Expenditure, Joint Secretary (P) and OSD of Implementation Cell decided to grant higher grades on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with actual payments being made prospectively in terms of formulation approved by the Group of Ministers for the Accounts Staff of Railways. Accordingly an Official Memo dated 28.02.2003 upgrading the pay s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8, informed that the Department of Expenditure did not agree for ante-dating the effective date of upgraded pay scale from 1996, at least for notional benefit. (j) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2018, the applicants in O.A.No.86 of 2008 and some others had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad by filing O.A.No.1089 of 2019 and batch. The Tribunal vide common order dated 09.01.2024 allowed the said OAs by directing the respondents to grant enhanced pay scale of Inspectors/ Superintendents in the Central Tax and Customs Department from 01.01.1996 notionally to all the applicants with consequential arrears. (k) In the meantime, some other applicants, who were similarly situated and circumstanced had filed O.A.397 of 2009 before Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal, wherein order was issued in favour of the applicants. Challenging the said order of this Tribunal the respondents of the said O.A. had approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta by filing W.P.C.T. 21 of 2015, which was disposed of on 03.05.2023 (Annexure A/2) by directing the Union of India to constitute a Special Anomaly Committee to decide the issue. Pursuant to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." The aforesaid judgment was further upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.59005/2024 vide Order dated 09.10.2024. Thus, the Order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 1089 of 2019 has attained finality. (m) The applicants in the instant O.A., being similarly situated and circumstanced with the applicants in the aforementioned cases, had filed representations to the authorities concerned praying for notional fixation of their pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual fixation from 21.04.2004 as accepted by the Government of India vide the aforementioned CBDT's letter dated 22.09.2023, but their case was rejected by the respondents. Hence this O.A. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has refuted the claim of the applicants in the following manner:- (a) The applicants are not entitled to any relief based on the aforesaid cases as referred to above as they chose to remain silent/ fence sitters for a considerably long period after the cause of action arose. Therefore, this O.A. should be barred by limitation. Moreover, their pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in case the Tribunal decides to extend any relief to the applicants, arrear payment should be restricted to three years prior to filing of this O.A. in accordance with the settled law of the land and not with effect from 01.01.1996. 4. Heard Learned Counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. 5. The short question to be decided in this O.A. is whether the applicants can be granted the benefit of notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 21.04.2004. 6. At hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicants has reiterated the aforementioned facts as stated in Para 2 of this order and vociferously argued that the contentious issue i.e. the benefit of enhanced pay scale notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 21.04.2004 is no more res integra in view of the following judgments and developments:- a) Hon'ble Telengana High Court's Order, dated 09.08.2024 in W.P. No. 10490/2024. (b ) Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order, dated 28.02.2025 dismissing the SLP, arising out of Hon'ble Telengana High Court's Order dated 09.08.2024. (c) Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's Order, dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Zone, CGST Delhi Zone. 8. So far as the delay and laches in approaching the court is concerned, it has been stated by the applicants that pay fixation is a recurring cause of action in terms of the propositions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that in this matter several litigations were filed before various judicial forums and after prolonged litigations, a Special Anomaly Committee constituted as per judgment of the Hon'ble High Court At Calcutta dated 03.05.2023 in W.P.C.T.No.21 of 2015 submitted its report only on 22.09.2023, whereafter the applicants have approached this Tribunal claiming the similar benefits as granted to other similarly situated employees. 9. From perusal of the aforementioned letters dated 27.08.2025 and 04.09.2025, it is clear that all the orders passed by various Hon'ble Courts on the issue had already been implemented by the respondents in 2025 itself on in personam basis. Therefore, the contention of the respondents regarding limitation is not applicable. 10. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to some judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and contended that the claim of the applicants is not tenabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dra Shrivastava is related to a completely different issue. The next judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India is related to the point of delay, which does not apply to the instant O.A. for the reasons already stated above. The subject matters of other two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to by the Learned Counsel for the respondents i.e. Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited & Another Vs. Balbir Kumar Walia & Others and State of Maharashtra & Another Vs. Bhagwan & Others are completely different from the subject matter in the instant O.A., therefore, those judgments are not applicable to this case. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Others vs. C. Lalitha reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 held in Para 29 that "Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently." Therefore, it is a settled law that once a benefit has been granted to a set of employees, t....