Administrative decisions cannot override binding judicial precedents to deny similar benefits to identically situated employees.

The applicant, Vijay Kumar Sharma (along with two others in connected matters), was initially appointed as Sectional Engineer/Junior Engineer in the Beas Satluj Link (BSL) Project on April 23, 1973, and declared quasi-permanent in 1978.

Upon completion of the BSL Project in 1985, he was redeployed to CPWD as a Junior Engineer (E) on May 29, 1985, with pay protection.

He was granted the personal/protected pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 effective January 1, 1986, which was revised to Rs. 6500-10500 effective January 1, 1996.

The Government of India introduced the ACP Scheme on August 9, 1999, and the MACP Scheme on September 1, 2008.

The applicant retired on December 31, 2009.

A similarly situated ex-BCB employee, Shri Surjeet Singh, was granted higher ACP/MACP benefits pursuant to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated April 5, 2019, in *Surjeet Singh Versus UOI & Others, O.A. No.060/326/2017*, which the respondents implemented on February 11, 2020, and July 30, 2020.

The applicant's repeated representations for identical treatment were rejected by the respondents via an order dated June 3, 2021, conveyed on June 17, 2021, on the grounds that Shri Surjeet Singh's case was specific and not to be treated as a precedent.

1. Whether the order dated June 3, 2021, passed by Respondent No. 3 and conveyed on June 17, 2021, which denied the applicant the benefit of the order dated April 5, 2019, in the case of Surjeet Singh, should be quashed.

2. Whether the order dated July 30, 2020, to the extent it states that the case of Surjeet Singh shall not be taken as a precedent for other cases, should be quashed.

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to grant the applicant the benefit of the order dated April 5, 2019, in *Surjeet Singh Versus UOI & Others*, and subsequent judgments, including first and second ACP in the scale of Rs. 10000-15200 and Rs. 12000-16500 with revised pay and third MACP in PB-4, along with all consequential benefits, identical to those granted to Shri Surjeet Singh.

The court primarily applied the principle that ex-BCB employees constitute a distinct class, and their ACP/MACP benefits must be linked to their personal/protected pay scale, not the scale of the post.

This principle was consistently established by the Central Administrative Tribunal and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases such as *K.S. Jandu & Others Versus UOI & Others, O.A. No.431/CH/2006*, and *O.A. No.336/HP/2010 (H.C. Sharma’s case)*.

The court also applied the legal doctrine that once a judicial pronouncement has been implemented for a similarly situated individual, denying the same benefit to others without forcing litigation is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as held in *State of Karnataka vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747*.

The court reasoned that the respondents' argument that the applicant was rightly granted the second ACP directly after 24 years of service was untenable because the settled position of law for ex-BCB employees mandates that their ACP/MACP benefits be linked to their personal/protected pay scale and not the scale of the post, as conclusively decided and upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *H.C. Sharma's case*.

Once the applicant's personal pay scale was fixed at Rs. 2000-3500 from January 1, 1986, his ACP/MACP entitlements should have been calculated based on this, regardless of any prior upgradation in a lower scale.

The court further held that the respondents' claim that benefits granted to Shri Surjeet Singh were "in personam" and not a precedent was unsustainable.

Since the applicant was admittedly similarly situated to Shri Surjeet Singh, denial of identical benefits after implementing the judgment for Shri Surjeet Singh constituted hostile discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The administrative stipulation in the office order dated July 30, 2020, purporting to limit the precedential value of Shri Surjeet Singh’s case, could not override binding judicial pronouncements and settled legal principles.

The impugned orders dated June 3, 2021, and July 30, 2020 (to the extent of denying parity with Shri Surjeet Singh), and orders dated February 15, 2023, in the connected O.A.s, were quashed.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicants ACP/MACP benefits based on their personal/protected pay scale, mirroring the benefits given to Shri Surjeet Singh, along with all consequential benefits, including pay re-fixation and arrears.

This exercise is to be completed within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.