Principle of Parity: Treating Similarly Situated Doctors' Post-Graduation Period Differently Violates Article 14 Equality Guarantees

The applicant, Dr. Payal Gupta, was pursuing a Post Graduation (PG) in Ophthalmology at GMC Jammu from April 2005

While pursuing the course, she was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon on 01.08.2005

Following her appointment, the Government issued an order (No. 530-HME of 2005) permitting newly appointed doctors already undergoing PG to continue their studies

After completing her PG in June 2008, the applicant joined her duties

However, via Government Order No. 587-JK(HME) of 2020, the respondents treated her PG period (03.08.2005 to 12.06.2008) merely as "extension in joining time" without financial benefits and with a warning

The applicant challenged this, citing the case of a similarly situated colleague, Dr. Bhavna Raina, whose PG period was treated as "deputation" with full service benefits

1. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily by treating the applicant’s PG period as "extension in joining time" while treating similarly situated doctors' periods as "deputation."

2. Whether the application of Article 106 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations was legally sustainable given the Government’s prior permission for the applicant to continue her studies.

The Tribunal primarily applied the doctrine of equality before law and equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that similarly situated persons must be treated alike unless there is a reasonable classification with a rational nexus to the object

Article 106 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956, which governs the consequences of exceeding joining time and loss of lien

The principle of the "State as a model employer," requiring the government to act fairly and consistently in service matters

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a "defaulting appointee" because she had submitted her joining report and was explicitly permitted by Government Order No. 530-HME of 2005 to continue her studies

Therefore, the respondents' reliance on Article 106 of the J&K CSR—which penalizes unauthorized delays in joining—was misplaced and could not be applied mechanically

Crucially, the Tribunal observed that Dr. Bhavna Raina, who was appointed under the same order and was also a PG student, was granted the benefit of "deputation." Since the respondents failed to establish any "intelligible differentia" or material distinction between the two doctors, the denial of similar benefits to the applicant constituted "hostile discrimination"

The Tribunal noted that the PG qualification benefitted the public health system, and denying service credit for this period would cause irreparable prejudice regarding her seniority and promotions

It held that the applicant is entitled to the same treatment as Dr. Bhavna Raina. The respondents were directed to treat the applicant's PG period (03.08.2005 to 12.06.2008) as "deputation" with all consequential benefits, including seniority, time-bound promotions, and pensionary benefits

Monetary arrears must be released within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum will apply