Respondents Must Consider Claim for Re-designation Parity Based on Similarly Situated Beneficiaries

The eleven petitioners were appointed as daily rated workers in the Rural Development Department and regularized in 1994.

They sought re-designation as per Government Order No. 70-RD&PR of 2014; however, that order was kept in abeyance by a subsequent order (No. 190-RD&PR of 2014), which was later withdrawn following High Court intervention in SWP No. 1203/2014.

The petitioners alleged that the respondents adopted a "pick and choose" method, granting re-designation to similarly situated colleagues while ignoring the petitioners' representations.

They specifically cited Government Order No. 213-DRDK of 2026, issued pursuant to a Tribunal order in Sayar Ahmad Laway v. U.T of J&K (O.A 872/2024), as a precedent for equal treatment.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of re-designation on the same analogy and treatment as granted to their colleagues under Government Order No. 213-DRDK of 2026.

2. Whether the failure of the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Court relied upon the Constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which prohibit the creation of a "class within a class" among similarly situated employees.

The principle of Parity in Employment, referencing the precedent set in Sayar Ahmad Laway & Ors v. U.T of J&K & Ors (O.A No. 872/2024), which mandated re-designation for similarly circumstanced workers.

The Tribunal noted that the petitioners are seeking "similar treatment on the analogy of their equally placed colleagues" regarding re-designation originally ordered in 2014.

The court observed that the respondents are legally bound to treat similarly situated employees equally to avoid prohibited discrimination.

Given that the respondents had already implemented the Tribunal’s earlier judgments for other employees through Government Order No. 213-DRDK of 2026, the court reasoned that the respondents are under a legal obligation to accord the same treatment to the petitioners if they stand on the same legal pedestal.

Rather than adjudicating on the merits, the Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the executive to consider the grievance in light of existing precedents.

The respondents were ordered to finalize the case strictly in light of the judgment in Sayar Ahmad Laway v. U.T of J&K (O.A 872/2024) and Government Order No. 213-DRDK of 2026, provided the petitioners are found to be similarly circumstanced and there is no legal impediment.