Respondents must consider parity claims by evaluating all similarly situated persons cited in a representation.

The petitioner, a retired employee, filed a writ petition alleging discrimination in the calculation of his pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

He contended that despite being eligible for a basic pay of Rs. 40,400/-, he was denied this rate while other identically situated persons received it.

The respondents, via counter-affidavit, argued that the petitioner's claim for parity with one individual, Ram Kathin Ram, was verified and found incorrect, leading to the rejection of his request for "stepping up".

The petitioner countered that the respondents ignored several other similarly situated individuals mentioned in his representation dated 16.01.2020 and focused solely on Ram Kathin Ram to justify the denial.

1. Whether the respondents failed to consider the petitioner’s claim for parity regarding basic pay in light of all identically situated persons mentioned in his representation.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh consideration of his representation dated 16.01.2020.

The court's decision was governed by the principles of non-discrimination and equality enshrined in the Constitution of India, specifically applied to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (as amended in 1997).

The primary legal doctrine applied is the right to parity, which mandates that the State, as an employer, must treat similarly situated employees equally regarding pay scales and "stepping up" of pay to match junior or equal-rank counterparts, provided they meet the same eligibility criteria.

The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the respondents' rejection was narrowly focused. While the respondents claimed the petitioner was not at par with Ram Kathin Ram, they failed to address or deliberate upon the other names cited in the petitioner's representation who allegedly received the basic pay of Rs. 40,400/-.

The Court observed that the respondents are under a legal obligation to provide a reasoned explanation as to why the petitioner is not entitled to the same benefits as all cited counterparts, rather than selectively choosing one comparison to deny the claim.

Consequently, the Court determined that the administrative consideration was incomplete and required a comprehensive review of the materials provided in Annexure-P/3.

The respondents are directed to reach a logical conclusion by explicitly detailing how the petitioner’s case differs from the other similarly situated persons mentioned in the representation; this exercise must be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt or production of the order.