Identically Situated Employees Are Entitled to Uniform Allowances Consistent With Previously Implemented Judicial Mandates

The Petitioners, employees under the Government of NCT of Delhi, sought parity with other staff members regarding the payment of House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Travelling Allowance (TA).

They relied on a Department of Training & Technical Education circular dated 25 March 2021, which extended these benefits to similarly situated employees following judgments in Satyaveer Singh v. GNCTD [W.P.(C) 4537/2017] and Lal Bahadur Yadav v. GNCTD [W.P.(C) 754/2018].

The Respondents refused the benefit, citing a Supreme Court precedent that restricted allowances for certain categories of employees.

The Petitioners challenged the Tribunal's denial of these benefits before the High Court.

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to HRA and TA on the ground of parity with identically situated employees who were granted the same vide the circular dated 25 March 2021.

2. Whether the restrictive observations regarding allowances in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh apply as an absolute bar to the Petitioners’ claims.

The Court applied the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding the "Model Employer," which dictates that the State cannot adopt different stands for identically situated persons.

The Court interpreted the precedent State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148, noting that the denial of allowances in that case was specific to the "employees concerned" therein rather than an omnibus rule.

The Court also relied on the finality of its own prior decisions in Satyaveer Singh v. GNCTD and Lal Bahadur Yadav v. GNCTD, which the State had already implemented via circular.

The Court rejected the Respondents’ reliance on Jagjit Singh, clarifying that paragraph 55 of said judgment did not create a universal prohibition against allowances for all contractual or temporary employees, but was confined to the facts of the cases cited therein.

The High Court observed that the Respondents had already noticed the Jagjit Singh ruling when deciding previous writ petitions (Satyaveer Singh and Lal Bahadur Yadav) and had chosen not to challenge those outcomes further, effectively allowing them to attain finality.

Since the Respondents had already issued a circular implementing those judgments for some staff, they were legally precluded from denying the same benefits to the Petitioners, who were admittedly "identically situated".

The Court held that the Petitioners are entitled to HRA, TA, and other allowances extended to their counterparts in the earlier litigations.

The Respondents were directed to pay all arrears from the date of filing of the Original Application (OA) within twelve weeks.