Similarly situated employees are entitled to equal treatment regardless of participation in prior successful litigation.

The applicant, Rajinder Singh, was appointed as a Skilled Pipe Fitter in the Military Engineering Service (MES) in 1981 and subsequently promoted to Highly Skilled (HS) grades

In 1998, he obtained a Diploma in Civil Engineering, making him eligible for promotion to Superintendent (BR) Grade-II (now Junior Engineer (Civil)) under the 1983 Recruitment Rules (RRs)

Although he was eligible and vacancies existed in 2001, the respondents implemented new RRs in 2001 that hindered his promotion.

He was eventually promoted under revised 2008 Rules.

The applicant sought ante-dated seniority from 01.04.2001, citing the case of a junior, Tej Ram (JE E/M), who had secured a similar benefit through litigation (OA No. 542/HR/2012) that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The respondents rejected his representation on 12.06.2017, asserting that he could not claim parity because he was not a party to the previous litigation and belonged to a different engineering branch (Civil vs. Electrical/Mechanical) with different promotion quotas.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of ante-dated seniority at par with a junior employee granted relief by a court, despite not being a party to that litigation.

2. Whether the difference in engineering branches (Civil vs. E/M) and their respective promotion quotas under different SROs precludes the grant of parity for promotion under the 1983 Recruitment Rules.

The court applied the principle of equality in service jurisprudence, which mandates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly regardless of whether they were parties to a specific litigation.

It relied on Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002), holding that once a judgment attains finality, the State is bound to grant relief to all similarly situated employees.

It cited Uttaranchal Forest Rangers Assn. v. State of U.P. (2006) and State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha (2006) to affirm that service jurisprudence evolves to prevent different treatment of similarly situated persons based solely on their involvement in court proceedings.

The case was also governed by the Recruitment Rules of 1983 (SRO 299 for Civil branch).

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' primary contention that the applicant was ineligible for relief because he was not a party to Tej Ram’s OA.

While acknowledging the respondents' argument that the Civil branch (SRO 299) had a 10% promotion quota compared to the 50% quota in the E/M branch (SRO 302), the Tribunal found that the applicant had fulfilled all eligibility criteria under the 1983 Rules as of 01.04.2001.

The Tribunal noted that vacancies in the Civil branch were available during the relevant period.

By applying the "similarly situated" doctrine, the Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant was eligible under the old rules before they were superseded, and since his junior in a parallel branch had been granted ante-dated promotion for the same period, the applicant was entitled to equal treatment to prevent administrative anomaly.

It held that the State must extend the benefits of a final judgment to all similarly situated employees to ensure parity.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant’s claim for ante-dated seniority w.e.f. 01.04.2001 under the 1983 Rules and pay all due and admissible arrears within eight weeks, though no interest was awarded on the arrears.