Discriminatory denial of service benefits to similarly situated employees is arbitrary and unsustainable.

The applicant, Mrs. Sebika Neog, was appointed as a Personal Assistant on August 8, 1991, under the NTMIS scheme, which was later transferred to AICTE in 1993.

The NTMIS scheme closed on March 31, 2013, and her salary was released until that date.

The Bhatt Committee, formed to explore staff absorption, recommended the absorption of Nodal Centres staff, including the applicant, on August 4, 2012.

A new scheme, NISTECHR, was implemented from April 1, 2013, with an MoU between AICTE and IAMR, intending to absorb NTMIS staff into host institutions or by creating supernumerary posts.

Assam Engineering College, however, conveyed its inability to absorb staff via a letter dated December 30, 2013.

This Tribunal, in O.A. No. 373/2015, issued an order dated November 20, 2015, directing respondents to dispose of the applicant's representation.

The respondents, through an order dated January 1, 2019, decided to absorb the applicant, who subsequently joined as a Project Officer at AICTE HQ on February 27, 2019.

While her pay as of March 31, 2013, was protected, she was denied arrears of salary from April 1, 2013, to February 26, 2019.

Similarly situated employees, such as Mr. Anindya Bhattacharya, received consequential service benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, and pensionary benefits upon retirement, following a Board of Governors (BOG) meeting on March 5, 2020.

The applicant filed this O.A. seeking similar benefits, citing a judgment by the CAT, Allahabad Bench, in O.A. No. 330/143/2015, which granted relief including arrears of salary to similarly situated employees.

The respondents argued that since the NTMIS scheme closed on March 31, 2013, the applicant could not be paid salary beyond that date, citing the "no work no pay" principle.

They also stated that her appointment at AICTE from February 13, 2019, was against a supernumerary post, and therefore, previous engagement benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment, and pensionary benefits, could not be extended.

The applicant, however, highlighted that the respondents admitted to implementing judgments from other CAT Benches for similarly situated employees.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to count the applicant's service from April 1, 2013, to February 26, 2019, for extending consequential benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, and pensionary benefits upon retirement?

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

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

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of non-discrimination and parity, ensuring that similarly situated employees receive equal treatment.

It relied on the precedent set by its Co-ordinate Bench, the CAT, Allahabad Bench, in O.A. No. 330/143/2015, which directed the release of arrear salaries and absorption benefits for similarly placed employees.

This Allahabad Bench order also referenced and affirmed directives from the CAT Mumbai Bench in O.A. Nos. 268 and 269 of 2015, upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai, regarding the absorption and release of arrears for NTMIS staff.

The Tribunal also acknowledged the legal principle that an employee should not suffer due to administrative delay or inaction.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not dispute that certain similarly placed employees, arising from the same scheme, had already been granted the benefit of counting past service and consequential monetary benefits.

The respondents failed to offer any distinguishing feature to justify denying these benefits to the applicant, thereby establishing a clear case of disparity.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's case was squarely covered by the order passed by the CAT, Allahabad Bench, in O.A. No. 330/143/2015, which had directed the release of arrear salaries and absorption benefits for employees in similar circumstances.

The Allahabad Bench's decision specifically highlighted the responsibilities of the MHRD and AICTE for the absorption and deployment of staff as per the Bhatt Committee Report and the subsequent decision by the Secretary, MHRD.

The Tribunal also rejected the respondents' contention that appointment against a supernumerary post was a valid ground for denial, particularly when such absorption was a result of judicial directions and adopted uniformly.

It was further reasoned that an employee should not be penalized for administrative delays or inaction, especially when otherwise eligible and similarly situated individuals have received relief.

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

The respondents are directed to count the past service rendered by the applicant under the NTMIS Scheme for extending all consequential service benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment, and pensionary benefits.

The respondents are directed to release arrears of salary for the intervening period from April 1, 2013, to February 26, 2019, as admissible, consistent with the benefits extended to similarly situated employees.

This exercise must be completed within three months from the receipt of the order, failing which interest at the applicable GPF rate for relevant years will be paid from the due date.

No order as to costs.