Similarly situated employees are entitled to equal treatment in redesignation.

The applicants, who are Helpers in the Rural Development Department, after their regularization by the competent authority, are seeking a change in their designation and consequential benefits, similar to those granted to other similarly situated Helpers in the department

Sanction for the redesignation of 945 Helpers as Plantation Supervisors, Plantation Watchers, and Chowkidars was initially accorded via Government Order No. 70-RD & PR of 2014 dated 27.02.2014, with effect from 30.09.2008

This order was subsequently held in abeyance by Government Order No. 190-RD & PR of 2014 dated 18.06.2014, pending an inquiry into alleged misconduct

Aggrieved Helpers challenged this abeyance order before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh, which, vide order dated 10.08.2017 in SWP No. 1280 of 2014, declared the abeyance order withdrawn

The High Court directed a committee to proceed with the redesignation exercise, subject to verification of genuineness certificates and granting all consequential benefits as per the 2014 Government Order

The respondents implemented this judgment, granting redesignation to similarly situated Helpers via Government Order No. 372-JK (RD & PR) of 2022 dated 01.12.2022

Further, in T.A. No. 250/2022, this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider similar claims in light of the order in Ghulam Mohammad Bhat & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., which was also implemented

Despite these precedents, the present applicants have not received the same benefits

Whether the respondents should be commanded to accord the same and similar treatment to the applicants as granted to others in terms of Government Order No. 70-RD & PR of 2014 dated 27-02-2014 and Government Order No. 445-JK (RD & PR) of 2024 dated 22-11-2024 read with the corrigendum dated 03-02-2026

Whether the respondents should be commanded to sanction the grant of consequential benefits retrospectively or from the date similarly situated employees were granted, after changing the designation of the applicants

The court applied principles of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that similarly situated persons are entitled to equal treatment, and denial thereof is arbitrary and discriminatory

The judgment also relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh in SWP No. 1280 of 2014, which directed the implementation of redesignation and consequential benefits for Helpers

Further, the order passed in Ghulam Mohammad Bhat & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. (order dated 15.03.2019) served as a guiding precedent for considering the claims of similarly situated employees

The applicants, who are Helpers, argued they are identically circumstanced to others who have already received redesignation and consequential service benefits

Their counsel highlighted that denying these benefits to the applicants, despite precedents and earlier High Court directives, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India

The respondents' counsel expressed no objection to a direction for consideration of the applicants' case in light of the High Court's judgment

The Tribunal, without delving into the merits, acknowledged that the applicants appear to be squarely covered by previous judgments that granted such benefits

This aligns with the principle that similarly situated individuals should receive similar treatment, and the court indicated that if no legal impediment exists, the benefits should be extended

The respondents are mandated to pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with the law and applicable rules, and keeping in view the merits and entitlements of the applicants, within a period of eight weeks from the date of service of the order, provided no other legal impediment exists