Benefit denial to similarly situated employees is arbitrary and discriminatory, demanding equal treatment.

The applicant, Dr. Bhupendra Goswami, was initially appointed as a Computer Operator on May 27, 1991, under the National Technical Manpower Information System (NTMIS) scheme within the Ministry of Education, which later transferred to AICTE in 1993.

The NTMIS scheme concluded on March 31, 2013, with the applicant receiving salary up to this date.

A new scheme, NISTECHR, was implemented from April 1, 2013, following recommendations for staff absorption by the Bhat Committee.

The applicant was absorbed into AICTE as a Project Officer on February 27, 2019, in compliance with a CAT order dated November 3, 2016, and his pay was protected as of March 31, 2013.

However, he was denied arrears of salary for the period from April 1, 2013, to February 26, 2019, as well as several consequential benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, and pensionary benefits.

The respondents argued that the applicant was not on AICTE's roll during the intervening period and thus not eligible for these benefits, further stating that his supernumerary appointment did not entail such benefits.

The applicant contended that similarly situated employees had been granted these benefits, citing a CAT Allahabad Bench order in O.A. No. 330/143/2015.

Despite the Allahabad Bench's directive not to treat its case as a precedent, the respondents did not dispute that other similarly placed employees under the same scheme had received past service and monetary benefits.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to count the applicant's service from June 1, 1991, to June 30, 2022, for the purpose of extending consequential benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, and pensionary benefits.

2. Whether the respondents should release the arrear salary of the applicant from April 1, 2013, to February 26, 2019, with interest.

3. Whether the denial of consequential service benefits to the applicant is arbitrary and discriminatory, given that similarly situated employees have been granted such relief.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the legal principle that similarly situated employees cannot be subjected to discriminatory treatment.

It stated that an employee should not suffer due to administrative delay or inaction, especially when eligible and when colleagues in similar circumstances have received relief.

The decision also drew upon the precedent set by the CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 330/143/2015, which directed the release of arrears and absorption benefits to similarly placed employees.

The court found that the respondents had not disputed the fact that certain employees, who were similarly placed as the applicant and originated from the same NTMIS scheme, had received the benefit of past service counting and consequential monetary benefits.

The respondents failed to provide any distinguishing features to justify denying these benefits to the applicant.

The court referenced the case of Mr. Anindya Bhattacharya, where a Board of Governors meeting was held to extend consequential benefits despite the applicant’s similar claim being unaddressed.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the CAT, Allahabad Bench, in O.A. No. 330/143/2015, had ordered the release of arrear salaries for similarly situated employees from September 1, 2013, and directed their absorption, which was subsequently upheld by the Mumbai High Court.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's case was squarely covered by the Allahabad Bench's order, emphasizing that an employee should not be penalized for administrative delays or inaction.

The argument that the applicant's supernumerary appointment was a valid ground for denial was dismissed, especially since the absorption itself was a result of judicial directives.

The Tribunal ruled that the denial of consequential service benefits to the applicant was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The respondents were directed to: (i) count the applicant's past service under the NTMIS Scheme for all consequential service benefits; (ii) release arrears of salary for the intervening period from April 1, 2013, to February 26, 2019, with interest at the GPF rate if delayed; and (iii) recalculate and release gratuity, leave encashment, and pensionary benefits by including the entire qualifying service from June 1, 1991, to June 30, 2022.

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