AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A):
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the matter is no longer res integra. He refers to OA No. 4516/2025 in the matter of Ashwini Kumar Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors and states that he would be satisfied if a similar direction is issued to the respondents as was issued in OA No. 4516/2025, inasmuch as the said decision has already been implemented by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents shows no objection to the same.
Heard the parties.
In view whereof, we refer to the decision passed in OA No. 2233/2025 on 18.04.2026, which has been followed in OA No. 1445/2026. The same is reproduced herein below:-
“5.The aforesaid Office Memorandum explicitly makes it clear that the respondents have agreed to grant the benefit of notional pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996, with actual monetary benefit from 21.04.2004, to the applicants herein. However, no formal order has been passed by the respondents with respect to the 13 applicants mentioned hereinabove, who are not members of the Association. It cannot be disputed that the applicants herein have approached this Tribunal and, therefore, the aforementioned benefits ought to be extended to them as well. On the basis of the factual matrix, it is evident that the applicants are similarly placed; hence, no distinction can be drawn between two sets of employees merely on the ground that some are not members of any association or union. It is well settled law that similarly situated persons cannot be discriminated against. It is incumbent upon the respondents to treat the applicants at par with those individuals who have already been extended the said benefit, regardless of their membership in ITGO or any other association. Denial of such benefits would not only be arbitrary but also discriminatory in nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha [(2006) 2 SCC 747] and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347], has reiterated that in service jurisprudence, all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Merely because one person has approached the Court cannot be a valid ground to deny the same relief to others similarly situated. Justice demands that no individual be allowed to derive undue advantage over others, and that benefits granted by the Court to a specific group must be extended to all identically situated employees. Failure to do so would amount to discrimination and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6.In view of the above, the present O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply with the order in letter and spirit in respect of all the applicants herein. The actual benefit of pay fixation/re-fixation, along with all consequential reliefs as mentioned above, in terms of the O.M. dated 27.06.2025, shall be granted to all the applicants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is once again clarified that the relief(s) shall be extended to all 251 applicants herein.”
Without going into the merits of the case, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants in the light of the decision already rendered in the aforesaid OA i.e OA No. 4516/2025.
The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid direction within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the OA stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
