### Retrospective regularisation of service must be granted on parity with similarly situated employees to avoid discrimination.

The petitioner was appointed as an Electrician on a consolidated basis by the Notified Area Committee, Bishnah, on 12.03.1992

Although the petitioner worked continuously, his services were regularized in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 only on 30.06.1998

The petitioner sought retrospective regularization from the date of his initial appointment, citing parity with two colleagues, Sanjay Kumar and Shashi Kumar (Khilafwarzi Inspectors).

These colleagues were also appointed on a consolidated basis in 1992 but were granted regular pay scales shortly thereafter in October 1992

The respondents opposed the petition on the grounds of estoppel, arguing the petitioner accepted the 1998 regularization without initial challenge

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the regular pay scale retrospectively from the date his post was adopted in the budget, based on the principle of parity with similarly situated employees?

The Court applied the constitutional principle of Right to Equality and Non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It focused on the doctrine of parity in service jurisprudence, which mandates that employees in similar circumstances and under the same engagement conditions must be treated equally

The court also interpreted the specific terms of the engagement orders, noting that consolidated appointments were temporary "till receipt of sanction of creation" and adoption of the post in Budget Estimates

The Court examined the service records of the petitioner’s colleagues, Sanjay Kumar and Shashi Kumar.

It found that all three individuals were engaged on a consolidated basis in March 1992 with the condition that their posts would be adopted in future Budget Estimates

The records revealed that while the colleagues' posts were adopted and their regular pay scales released on 23.10.1992, the petitioner—whose post was adopted by the Administrator on 13.10.1992—was denied the same benefit until 1998

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had been "invidiously discriminated" against because the trigger for regularization (the adoption of the post in the budget) occurred for him in October 1992, yet the respondents delayed the benefit without justification

The Court directed the respondents to release the grade of Rs. 800-1500 (old) in favor of the petitioner from 13.10.1992 and pay all resulting arrears of salary

The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise within two months

The petition was disposed of accordingly