Denial of Notional Promotion Benefits Solely Due to Post-Order Regularization Date Constitutes Arbitrary Discrimination

The six applicants, retired employees of the Jal Shakti (formerly PHE) Department, sought the quashing of an order dated 08.12.2018.

This order rejected their claim for higher grade benefits under Circular No. PHEJ/20094-20113 dated 18.03.1993 and Order No. PHEJ/3417-37 dated 11.06.1993.

The applicants alleged that despite physically working against higher posts, they were denied benefits extended to similarly situated colleagues.

The respondents contended that the 1993 orders applied only to employees already on the regular establishment at the time of issuance (pre-1993), whereas the applicants were regularized between 1994 and 1995.

They further argued that the 1993 circulars were repealed in 2010/2018 and superseded by SRO 14 of 1996.

The applicants approached the Tribunal following a liberty granted by the High Court in contempt proceedings.

1. Whether the applicants could be denied the benefit of the 1993 order solely on the ground of their post-1993 regularization despite allegedly fulfilling the condition of physical working against the posts.

2. Whether the subsequent repeal of the 1993 circulars could retrospectively defeat a claim for benefits accrued during the period the circulars were operational.

The court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It relied on the constitutional principle of Equality before Law (Article 14), emphasizing that the "nature of duties performed" and "physical working against a post" are primary criteria for grade upgradation when specifically stated in a policy.

The court further applied the principle that a "subsequent repeal" of a beneficial circular cannot extinguish claims or rights that accrued or required consideration while the policy was in force, particularly to prevent hostile discrimination.

The Tribunal reasoned that the 11.06.1993 order was intended to remove stagnation based on the physical discharge of higher duties.

It held that the respondents’ rejection based strictly on the date of regularization was a "narrow and mechanical" interpretation that ignored the material fact of the applicants’ actual service record.

The court noted that the respondents failed to conduct a comparative factual exercise to distinguish the applicants from colleagues who received the benefit.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the repeal of the circular in 2010/2018 could not be used as a "shield" to perpetuate discrimination for the period the order was active.

Since the 1993 order itself specified that benefits would be "notional" without salary arrears, the financial implications were limited to pensionary adjustments.

It held that the applicants are entitled to notional placement in the higher grade under the 1993 order, subject to verification of their physical working against the relevant posts.

The respondents were directed to verify service records within three months and grant notional pay fixation and consequential pensionary/retiral benefits.

While no arrears of past salary were awarded, the Tribunal ordered that any delay in releasing revised pensionary benefits beyond three months would attract interest at 6% per annum.