Identically situated non-litigants are entitled to identical notional retrospective appointment benefits.

The applicants participated in the Class-IV recruitment process initiated through Advertisement Notice No. 1 of 1998.

After cancellation of certain appointments and prolonged litigation, the applicants were appointed pursuant to Government Order No. 440-Edu of 2010 dated 13 May 2010, but their appointments were given only prospective effect.

In Bharat Hussain and subsequent proceedings, similarly situated candidates obtained appointment-related benefits with effect from 6 July 2005.

In Bharat Bhushan v. State of J&K, LPA No. 54/2019 and connected matters, decided on 20 March 2019, the High Court directed that the appointments of the appellants be treated notionally from 6 July 2005 for qualifying service, pay fixation and pension, without back wages.

The respondents implemented that judgment for the concerned employees through Order No. DSEJ/Legal/50017-24 dated 12 March 2022.

The applicants thereafter approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 652/2022, which directed the respondents to consider their claim in light of Bharat Bhushan.

The respondents rejected the claim by Order No. DSEJ/Legal/4949-53 dated 1 March 2024, principally on the ground that the applicants were not parties to the litigation in Bharat Bhushan.

The applicants challenged that rejection under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, alleging discrimination and denial of parity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the applicants, though not formal parties to Bharat Bhushan v. State of J&K, were entitled to the same notional date of appointment—6 July 2005—as other candidates arising from the same recruitment process and appointed under the same Government Order No. 440-Edu of 2010?

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicants’ claim solely because they were not appellants in Bharat Bhushan was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

Whether the impugned order dated 1 March 2024 complied with the Tribunal’s earlier direction to consider the applicants’ claim in light of Bharat Bhushan?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing the applicants’ challenge before the Tribunal.

It applied the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16, holding that identically situated employees arising from the same recruitment process must ordinarily receive equal treatment.

The Tribunal relied on the binding effect of the Division Bench judgment in Bharat Bhushan v. State of J&K, LPA No. 54/2019 and connected matters, which directed notional appointment from 6 July 2005 for qualifying service, pay fixation and pension, while denying arrears for the period during which the employees had not actually worked.

It also distinguished Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Association v. State of U.P. and K.C. Joshi v. Union of India, relied upon by the respondents, because the present case concerned parity arising from the same recruitment process and judicial directions rather than an independent claim for retrospective seniority by persons not borne on the cadre.

The Tribunal found that the applicants and the beneficiaries of Bharat Bhushan belonged to the same identifiable class: they participated in the same 1998 recruitment process, were appointed under the same Government Order No. 440-Edu of 2010, and were governed by the same service conditions and cadre structure.

The respondents did not identify any factual or legal distinction apart from the applicants’ absence from the cause title in Bharat Bhushan.

The Tribunal held that this formal distinction had no rational nexus with the object of the relief and could not justify unequal treatment under Articles 14 and 16.

Since the respondents had accepted and implemented Bharat Bhushan for similarly situated employees, they could not selectively deny the same benefit to the applicants.

Further, the impugned order did not independently assess the applicants’ common recruitment, appointment order, factual parity or the effect of the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment; it merely reproduced the Administrative Department’s instruction to reject the claim.

The rejection therefore suffered from non-application of mind and failure to comply with the Tribunal’s earlier direction.

It directed the respondents to treat the applicants’ appointments, including Applicant No. 29 as the legal representative of late Mohd. Aslam, as having been made notionally from 6 July 2005 on the same terms as directed in Bharat Bhushan.

The period from 6 July 2005 until actual joining was to count as notional service for qualifying service, pay fixation, admissible increments, seniority in accordance with law and consequential pensionary benefits, including consideration for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme where legally applicable.

No arrears of salary were granted for the period during which the applicants had not actually worked, except consequential refixation of pay and pension.

The respondents were directed to issue consequential orders and revise the applicants’ service and pension records within twelve weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order; no costs were awarded.