Similarly situated employees are entitled to equal treatment and pay benefits as granted to their counterparts.

The three applicants, serving as Computer Operators in the Power Development Department of Jammu and Kashmir, filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

They alleged inaction by the respondents regarding the retrospective upgrade of their pay scale from Rs. 2000-3200 (pre-revised) to higher scales, ultimately reaching Level-7 (Rs. 44900-142400)

The applicants claimed parity with their counterparts who had previously succeeded in the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Anil Raina Ors vs. State of J Ors (SWP No. 1911/2013), where the court directed the removal of a similar pay anomaly

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the retrospective upgrade of their pay scales to Level-7 based on the principle of parity with the judgment in Anil Raina Ors vs. State of J Ors

2. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to extend the benefits of a prior judicial decision to the applicants as "similarly situated" employees

The Tribunal primarily operated under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It relied on the legal principle of "equality of opportunity" in public employment as articulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Berry vs Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi Ors. (1974)

This rule establishes that persons similarly situated or in the same category must receive equal treatment regarding the conditions of employment and the application of uniform standards for competing claims

The Tribunal assessed the applicants' claim for parity against the backdrop of the High Court’s ruling in Anil Raina’s case, which addressed identical pay anomalies for Computer Operators in the same department

The court reasoned that if the applicants are indeed similarly situated to the successful petitioners in the previous litigation, the respondents cannot arbitrarily withhold the same benefits

By invoking the Amrit Lal Berry precedent, the Tribunal linked the constitutional mandate of equality to the administrative duty of the state, concluding that the respondents must verify the applicants' status and apply the law uniformly to avoid unjustifiable discrimination

The respondents were further directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, ensuring the decision adheres to the principles of equal treatment in employment