Benefits granted in settled service litigation must extend to all similarly situated employees.

The ten applicants were initially appointed as Store Keepers and were subsequently promoted through the posts of Senior Store Keeper, Store Superintendent and Senior Store Superintendent, ultimately retiring as Ordnance Officer Civilian (S)/Material Manager. The dispute concerned the counting of past service for seniority and consequential promotional benefits.

In OA No. 2317/1995, the Tribunal held that ex-Civilian School Masters redeployed as Store Keepers could not count their previous service for seniority as Senior Store Keepers. In OA No. 1981/1996, decided on 3 June 2002, similar relief was granted to Store Keepers; the decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 4810/2002 on 17 January 2017.

The respondents subsequently implemented the decision and restored the seniority of similarly situated employees, granting consequential promotional benefits.

Further applications by similarly situated employees—OA Nos. 1987/2019 and 1089/2022—were allowed, and the latter decision was considered by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5795/2026. The High Court held that similarly situated persons should receive similar treatment, even if they had not individually approached the Court.

The present applicants obtained relevant documents through RTI and submitted individual representations seeking similar benefits. Their representations were rejected on the ground that OA No. 1981/1996 applied only to its named applicants and could not be extended without a Government order.

The respondents additionally argued that the applicants had retired long ago, were not parties to the earlier proceedings, and that relevant records had been lost or destroyed.

Whether the applicants, being similarly situated to the beneficiaries of OA Nos. 1981/1996, 1987/2019 and 1089/2022, were entitled to extension of the same seniority and consequential promotional benefits despite not being parties to the earlier proceedings.

Whether the respondents could deny consideration of the applicants’ claims on the ground that the relevant service records were unavailable or had been lost/destroyed.

Whether the applicants’ cases were required to be considered in the Review DPC conducted or proposed to be conducted pursuant to the earlier judgments and orders.

The Tribunal applied the principle that similarly situated employees must receive समान treatment and that the benefit of a judgment may extend to all persons similarly situated, even where they did not individually approach the Court.

It relied on State of Karnataka & Ors. v. C. Lalitha, State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors., as referred to and applied by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5795/2026.

The Tribunal also treated the earlier decisions in OA Nos. 1981/1996, 1987/2019 and 1089/2022, which had been implemented or upheld, as establishing the applicants’ entitlement to parity, subject to their being similarly situated and otherwise eligible in law.

The respondents could not rely on non-availability of records to defeat claims arising from a controversy of which they had long been aware and in respect of which they had themselves implemented prior decisions.

The Tribunal found that the applicants belonged to the same class as the employees who had obtained relief in the earlier proceedings: they had followed the same promotional hierarchy and were affected by the same dispute concerning seniority and consequential promotions.

Since the earlier orders had been implemented by the respondents and the Delhi High Court had affirmed the principle that similarly situated employees should not be treated differently merely because they had not litigated individually, the rejection of the applicants’ representations solely on that basis was unsustainable.

The plea regarding destroyed or unavailable records was also rejected because the respondents possessed the relevant service particulars, had been aware of the litigation from its inception, and had implemented the earlier judgments and orders.

Accordingly, the applicants were entitled to similar treatment, subject to verification of their individual eligibility in accordance with law, including consideration in the Review DPC.

The respondents were further directed to consider the applicants’ cases in the Review DPC being conducted or proposed pursuant to the earlier orders and to take consequential action.

The exercise was to be completed within three months from receipt of the order.

The OA and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.