Judgments in rem must be extended by the State to all similarly situated persons to prevent discrimination.

The petitioners, working as Assistants/Personal Assistants in Ordnance Factories and the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), filed contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of a judgment dated 14.10.2014 passed in W.P.(C) 4606/2013.

That judgment directed the respondents to fix the pay scales of Assistants in Ordnance Factories at par with similarly placed Assistants in the CSS/CSSS, Army Headquarters, and other specified departments based on historical parity.

The benefits were not extended to the current petitioners despite the court's earlier overarching directions.

The respondents contested the petitions on grounds of delay/laches and the alleged absence of historical pay parity for this specific set of employees.

1. Whether the directions for pay parity issued in the 2014 judgment must be extended to all similarly situated employees, including those not party to the original litigation.

2. Whether the claims are barred by the exceptions of laches, delay, or "fence-sitting".

3. Whether the respondents' contention regarding the absence of historical pay parity can be re-agitated in contempt proceedings.

The court applied the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding equal treatment of similarly situated persons.

It relied on Girish Mittal v. Parvati V. Sundaram [(2019) 20 SCC 747] stating that general directions in a judgment allow any aggrieved party to file for contempt.

It further applied U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. v. Ram Gopal [(2021) 13 SCC 225] and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. UOI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3664], which establish that for judgments in rem, the State must extend benefits to all similarly placed employees without forcing individual litigation.

Lastly, it cited Anil Kumar Shahi v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav [(2008) 14 SCC 115] regarding the court's power to pass consequential orders for the enforcement of its directions.

The Court observed that the 2014 judgment explicitly covered "other similarly placed Assistants working in Ordnance Factories".

The court rejected the plea of laches, noting that the nature of the directions gives rise to a "continuing cause of action" and that the petitioners had been diligently pursuing the matter with the respondents.

Regarding the factual dispute over pay parity, the court held that the reasoning in paragraph 19 of the 2014 judgment—which ruled that the exclusion of certain non-secretariat employees was "specious" as the list of departments was illustrative—precluded the respondents from re-litigating the parity issue now.

The court emphasized that the State cannot adopt a discriminatory "sauce for the goose" approach; if parity was recognized for one set of Assistants in the OFB, it must be maintained for all throughout their service.

The court directed the respondents to afford the petitioners the same pay dispensation as granted to Assistants in the CSS/CSSS and earlier successful litigants within 12 weeks. The petitions were disposed of with a warning that non-compliance would be treated as an "egregious breach" and "wilful disobedience," granting the petitioners liberty to revive the contempt petitions if necessary.