The Chennai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed the government to extend revised pay scale benefits to all similarly placed Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise, holding that such benefits cannot be restricted only to those who approached courts.

The order was passed by M. Swaminathan (Judicial Member) and M.L. Srivastava Member(A) allowed a batch of applications  filed by serving and retired officers of the Central Tax and Customs Department.

The applicants were working as Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise as on January 1, 1996. Historically, these officers enjoyed pay parity with their counterparts in investigative agencies like the CBI and IB. However, this parity was disturbed after the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations, when higher pay scales were selectively granted to CBI and IB officials.

Following prolonged representations and disputes, a High Power Committee recommended restoring parity. Consequently, the government issued an Office Memorandum in 2004 granting upgraded pay scales of ₹6500–10500 and ₹7500–12000. However, the benefit was implemented only prospectively.

Several tribunals and High Courts later held that denial of notional benefits from 01.01.1996 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, leading to multiple favorable rulings for employees.

The core issue before the Tribunal was whether such benefits—particularly notional pay fixation from January 1, 1996—should be extended to all similarly situated officers or restricted only to those who had litigated earlier.

The applicants challenged a communication dated June 16, 2025, which limited the benefit only to specific litigants, treating earlier judicial decisions as applicable in personam (to individuals) rather than in rem (to a class).

The government opposed the applications, arguing that the claims were time-barred under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and that the applicants were “fence-sitters” who approached the Tribunal belatedly after seeing favorable judgments in other cases.

However, the Tribunal rejected this contention, noting that pay fixation issues constitute a recurring cause of action. It also relied on judicial precedents holding that similarly situated employees cannot be denied benefits merely because they did not litigate earlier.

The Tribunal emphasized that earlier court rulings on the issue were judgments in rem, applicable to all similarly placed employees. It held that the government cannot arbitrarily reinterpret such binding decisions as being limited only to individual litigants.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that equality under Article 14 mandates uniform treatment of similarly situated persons.

Setting aside the impugned communication, the Tribunal directed the authorities to refix the pay of applicants notionally from 01.01.1996; grant actual monetary benefits from 21.04.2004; and extend all consequential benefits, including arrears and pensionary benefits

The Tribunal directed that the entire exercise be completed within two months.

Case Details

Case Title: R.Mahadevan Versus UOI

Case No.: OA/310/00811/2025

Date: 09/03/2026

Read More: Consolidation Of SCNs Covering Multiple FY Under S. 73, 74 of CGST Act Allowed: Delhi HC