Equality of Treatment for Similarly Situated Settlement Assistants in Appointment as Patwaris Under Government Service Regulations.

The six applicants were engaged as Settlement Assistants in the Revenue Department pursuant to Cabinet Decision No. 155/10 dated 23.09.2005 and Government Order No. 259-Rev(S) of 2005.

During their tenure, they qualified for the Departmental Patwari Examination, making them eligible for adjustment as Patwaris.

Despite a previous litigation (TA No. 2779/2021) and the fact that similarly situated individuals from Jammu Province (vide G.O. No. 13-JK (Rev) of 2026) and Kargil (vide G.O. dated 30.11.2017) were regularized, the applicants' services were not adjusted/regularized.

The applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, seeking parity and regularization.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the same treatment and benefits regarding regularization/adjustment as Patwaris as accorded to similarly situated beneficiaries in Jammu and Kargil.

2. Whether the failure of the respondents to consider the applicants for adjustment constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, to allow a joint application.

Constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16, which prohibit the state from adopting different standards for persons belonging to a single homogeneous class.

The principle of parity, ensuring that administrative benefits granted to one set of similarly situated employees must be extended to others unless a legal impediment exists.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants were engaged under the same policy and qualifications as those in Jammu and Kargil who had already been regularized.

The counsel argued that the applicants form part of a "homogeneous class" and any distinction in treatment by the Revenue Department without a rational basis would be arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

Without delving into the merits of the specific eligibility of each applicant, the Tribunal reasoned that the respondents are legally obligated to evaluate the applicants' claims against the precedents set by Government Order No. 13-JK (Rev) of 2026 and the 2017 order for Kargil.

The court emphasized that if the applicants are found to be "similarly situated," they must receive identical benefits to satisfy the mandate of administrative fairness.

The holding mandates that the applicants be accorded similar benefits as their counterparts in Jammu and Kargil, provided they are found to be truly similarly situated and there is no legal impediment to their appointment/adjustment as Patwaris.

All connected M.A.s were also disposed of.