Authorities must extend identical benefits where petitioners’ claims are found identical to those granted parity.

The 22 petitioners, working as Assistant Professors, challenged the respondents’ failure to extend to them the officiating charge and associated benefits of Associate Professor with effect from 29 October 2024.

Their grievance arose after the Assistant Professor posts were upgraded in situ to Associate Professor in the existing Assistant Professor pay scale through Notification No. 989(17), stated in the judgment to be dated 29 October 2025, issued pursuant to Notifications Nos. 641(17) dated 18 July 2024 and 712(17) dated 13 August 2024.

The petitioners claimed that similarly situated Assistant Professors had been granted officiating charge and corresponding benefits under the said notifications and annexures P/7, P/8 and P/8A.

They also sought recognition of the period as Associate Professor experience for all purposes, including future promotion.

The petitioners had submitted a detailed representation dated 7 April 2026 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar.

Whether the petitioners, being similarly situated Assistant Professors, were entitled to officiating charge and the associated benefits of Associate Professor with effect from 29 October 2024 on the basis of parity with other Assistant Professors.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to recognition of the relevant period as Associate Professor experience for purposes including future promotion.

Whether the petitioners’ representation should be considered and decided by the competent authority.

The Court relied on the constitutional principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as explained in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3, namely that arbitrary State action is inconsistent with equality and that public authorities must act fairly and uniformly.

The Court further applied the administrative law principle that a competent authority must examine and decide a properly submitted representation concerning an employment grievance.

If the petitioners’ claims were found to be identical to those of the employees with whom parity was sought, identical benefits must be extended to them.

The Court did not finally adjudicate whether the petitioners were substantively entitled to the claimed officiating charge or promotional experience.

Instead, it noted that the petitioners had already approached the competent authority through a detailed representation and that the State itself submitted that the Additional Chief Secretary would examine the matter.

Applying the principles of fairness, equality and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16, the Court considered it appropriate to require the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, to examine the petitioners’ claim in light of the benefits granted to similarly situated Assistant Professors.

The Court specifically preserved the principle of parity by directing that identical benefits be granted if the petitioners’ cases were found to be factually identical.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, was directed to consider and bring to its logical conclusion the petitioners’ representation dated 7 April 2026, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt or production of the Court’s order.

If the petitioners were found to be identically situated with the persons whose benefits they claimed, the competent authority was directed to accord them identical benefits.