Seniority-based parity in compassionate appointments overrules the "no precedent" clause to prevent hostile discrimination under Article 14.

The applicant’s husband, a teacher, died in harness, leading to her compassionate appointment as a Lab Bearer (Class-IV) on August 7, 1995, based on her 10+2 qualification

Respondent No. 5, Pankaj Kumar, was similarly appointed as a Lab Bearer on December 6, 1995, with the same qualification, making the applicant senior to him

Respondent No. 5 successfully litigated in SWP No. 1389/2000, resulting in his appointment as a Lab Assistant in 2013 and subsequent promotion to Teacher in 2018

The applicant approached the High Court in 2018 seeking parity, which resulted in a direction to the respondents to consider her claim

The respondents rejected her claim via order dated May 10, 2019, asserting that Respondent No. 5’s case was a result of judicial orders and not a precedent

1. Whether a senior employee can be denied service benefits granted to a junior, similarly situated employee solely because the junior obtained relief through a court order

2. Whether the applicant's acceptance of the initial Class-IV appointment in 1995 or the delay in filing the application bars her from seeking parity with her junior

The Tribunal applied the mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which requires the State to act fairly and without discrimination in service matters

State, as a model employer, must extend equal treatment to all similarly placed employees without forcing each to litigate

the Tribunal relied on the precedent of Jai Dev Gupta v. State of H.P. and Another (AIR 1998 SC 2819), which stipulates that actual monetary benefits in cases of delayed claims should be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing the petition

The Tribunal reasoned that since both the applicant and Respondent No. 5 were appointed under the same scheme, held the same qualifications, and the applicant was senior, they were "identically placed"

the Tribunal held that judicial observations regarding "precedent" cannot be used as a shield to perpetrate "hostile discrimination" against a senior employee

The Tribunal found the rejection order lacked application of mind because it focused on the source of Respondent No. 5's relief (the court order) rather than the entitlement based on parity and seniority

the Tribunal noted Respondent No. 5 had also accepted the same post in 1995, rendering that argument irrational

The respondents were directed to treat the applicant as a Lab Assistant effective December 21, 2013, and as a Teacher effective July 16, 2018. Relief regarding seniority and pay fixation was granted on a notional basis from those dates; however, actual monetary arrears were restricted to three years prior to the filing of her 2018 writ petition