Selection Scale cannot be claimed by parity without proving identical eligibility and material circumstances.

The five applicants, retired Principals/Vice-Principals of schools under the Government of NCT of Delhi, sought higher pay scales, selection scale, and consequential pensionary benefits by claiming parity with benefits granted in earlier Tribunal decisions, particularly V.P. Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., OA No. 367/2010.

The OA was initially disposed of on 4 May 2016, with partial relief concerning pension fixation in the scale of Principal; the order was subsequently complied with in contempt proceedings.

Applicants 1, 2 and 4 challenged denial of the remaining reliefs before the Delhi High Court. By order dated 13 October 2025 in W.P.(C) No. 12596/2018, the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration of Prayer No. (vi), concerning grant of Selection Scale after completion of 12 years’ service as PGT on the basis of V.P. Singh.

During the remand proceedings, Applicants 1 and 4 died, and their legal heirs did not pursue the matter. The counsel therefore pressed the OA only on behalf of Applicant No. 2, Mehma Singh.

Whether Applicant No. 2 was entitled to the Selection Scale on completion of 12 years’ service as PGT by relying upon the decision in V.P. Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., OA No. 367/2010.

Whether mere implementation of the V.P. Singh decision in favour of the concerned employee entitled the applicant to identical relief without specific proof that he was similarly situated, fulfilled the eligibility conditions, and was affected by the same service conditions.

Whether the applicant established entitlement notwithstanding the issues concerning availability of posts/quota and the effect of the ACP Scheme introduced from 1999.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a claim for parity or extension of judicial relief requires proof that the claimant is similarly situated in all material respects and satisfies the applicable eligibility conditions.

Implementation of relief in favour of another employee does not automatically create an enforceable right in favour of every other employee unless identical facts and service conditions are established.

The Tribunal also treated the entitlement to Selection Scale as subject to the governing requirements, including availability of posts/quota and the impact of the ACP Scheme introduced in 1999.

The decision in V.P. Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., OA No. 367/2010, was considered as the precedent on which the applicant sought parity, but not as creating an automatic or unconditional entitlement.

The Tribunal held that Applicant No. 2 had not produced specific or cogent material demonstrating that a junior teacher or officer, similarly placed and governed by the same terms, had been granted Selection Scale over and above him.

The applicant also failed to satisfactorily establish the relevance of post/quota availability or explain how the ACP Scheme affected his claim.

Since the legal principle of parity operates only upon proof of identical facts and fulfilment of the applicable conditions, the mere fact that the order in V.P. Singh had been implemented could not confer an automatic right upon the applicant.

The Tribunal consequently found no enforceable basis for granting Selection Scale under the remanded prayer.

The OA, insofar as it was pursued by Mehma Singh, was dismissed.

Any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.