To
Shri Vivek Chaturvedi
Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC)
Kartavya Bhawan–I
New Delhi
Subject : Representation seeking reconsideration of proposal to file Review Petition against Final Order dated 19.01.2026 in OA Nos. 387 & 1428 of 2024 passed by the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi and for uniform implementation of CAT Hyderabad Bench Order in OA No. 1089/2009 & batch matters.
Sir,
I submit this formal legal representation on behalf of the affected officers and pensioners, invoking your attention to the grave legal infirmities and constitutional implications arising out of the proposed filing of a review petition against the final order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, and the continued insistence on implementing the relief only on an in personam basis.
- Supremacy of Judicial Orders over Executive Policy
It has been conveyed by your esteemed office that the Department of Expenditure has agreed to grant the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on notional basis and from 21.04.2004 on actual basis, but only on an in personam basis, treating the order of the Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench as being “against policy”.
At the outset, it is submitted with utmost respect that no executive policy—howsoever framed—can override, dilute, or nullify a binding judicial pronouncement. This principle has been repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has held that the rule of law is the basic structure of the Constitution, and executive authorities are constitutionally bound to implement court orders in letter and spirit.
Once a competent judicial forum has adjudicated an issue and granted relief, the executive has no discretion to refuse implementation on policy grounds. Any such action would amount to executive overreach and disregard of judicial authority, which is impermissible under the constitutional scheme.
- Service and Pay Matters Must Operate in Rem
It is a settled and binding principle that service jurisprudence, particularly pay fixation and scale-related matters, cannot be applied selectively.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that:
• If a benefit has been extended to one employee pursuant to a court order, it must be extended to all similarly situated employees.
• Restricting relief only to litigants results in hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
• Courts must not be compelled to deal with identical matters repeatedly due to selective implementation by the administration.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that service-related judgments should ordinarily operate in rem, unless specifically restricted by the court itself. Pay matters, by their very nature, define service conditions and cadre structures, and therefore cannot be fragmented into individual entitlements.
Despite this settled law, CBIC has, over the years, implemented multiple orders arising from OA No. 1089/2009 & batch matters only on an in personam basis, thereby compelling similarly placed officers to repeatedly approach judicial forums. This practice has been repeatedly deprecated by constitutional courts.
- Filing of Review Petition Does Not Justify Withholding Benefits
It is further submitted that the mere proposal or filing of a review petition does not operate as a stay on the implementation of a judicial order. Unless the order is specifically stayed by a competent court, it remains binding, operative, and enforceable.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that administrative authorities cannot sit in appeal over judicial orders nor can they delay implementation on the pretext of seeking further legal remedies.
Withholding even the admitted portion of benefits—particularly when the Department of Expenditure itself has agreed to partial implementation—amounts to arbitrariness and denial of lawful entitlement.
- Discrimination and Avoidable Litigation
By limiting implementation to an in personam basis, CBIC is:
• Creating two artificial classes among identically placed officers;
• Violating the constitutional mandate of equality;
• Encouraging avoidable, repetitive, and wasteful litigation;
• Causing unnecessary financial and psychological hardship to retirees and serving officers alike.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned government departments that forcing employees to litigate for identical relief is oppressive, unjust, and contrary to good governance.
- Specific Legal Prayers
In light of the above constitutional position and binding judicial precedents, it is most respectfully but firmly requested that:
(i) Pending the outcome of any proposed review petition, the applicants in OA Nos. 387 & 1428 of 2024 be immediately granted the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 on notional basis and from 21.04.2004 on actual basis, in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble CAT, Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 1089/2009 & batch matters.
The question of actual arrears for the period 01.01.1996 to 20.04.2004, if so advised, may be independently contested without withholding the admitted relief.
(ii) In conformity with constitutional mandates and Supreme Court jurisprudence, the said benefit may be extended to all equally placed, situated, and circumstanced officers on an in rem basis, instead of restricting it to individual litigants.
This would:
• Uphold the rule of law,
• Prevent multiplicity of litigation,
• Save precious judicial time,
• Reinforce CBIC’s commitment to fair, uniform, and lawful administration.
- Concluding Submission
It is earnestly hoped that CBIC, under your esteemed leadership, will voluntarily align its actions with constitutional principles and binding judicial law, rather than compelling affected officers and pensioners to seek further judicial intervention.
This representation is made in the larger interest of justice, administrative integrity, and constitutional governance, and it is trusted that the same will receive your urgent and sympathetic consideration.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(Lokanath Mishra)
Chief Adviser
All India Pensioners’ Association of CBIC
Appeal to Members – 8th Central Pay Commission Questionnaire (Pensioners)
The Union Budget and the Forgotten Taxpayer : Why Pensioners, Employees and the Middle Class Continue to Be Ignored
Fitment Factor, Pension Revision and Constitutional Mandate : Why the 8th Pay Commission Must Deliver Substantive Justice to Pensioners ?