Similarly situated employees are entitled to notional seniority from the date of appointment of their counterparts.

The 49 petitioners applied for the post of Teacher in District Cadre Rajouri under Advertisement Notice No. 07 of 2010

The selection process was finalized on 11.09.2012, and some candidates (including petitioners 28 and 48) received appointment orders on 03.11.2012

However, the High Court of J&K quashed the entire selection process on 09.04.2013 following challenges by unsuccessful candidates

On appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Israr Munir & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. (2015) upheld the selection and directed the State to give effect to the appointment letters

Following subsequent interlocutory applications, the State issued fresh appointment orders to the petitioners in 2017

The petitioners challenged these orders to the extent that they were given prospective effect from 2017 rather than retrospective effect from 2012, which deprived them of seniority and other service benefits

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their appointment orders treated with retrospective/notional effect from 11.09.2012 or 03.11.2012, rather than prospective effect from 2017

2. Whether the principle of parity applies to the petitioners in light of previous Tribunal decisions involving similarly situated candidates from the same selection process

The Tribunal relied on the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Israr Munir & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors. (SLP Nos. 24173-24176 of 2014), which upheld the 2010 selection process and mandated that appointment letters be given effect.

It primarily applied the "Principle of Parity and Equal Treatment," asserting that similarly situated employees must be treated alike in service matters.

Furthermore, the Tribunal followed its own legal precedent established in TA No. 9113/2020, which granted retrospective notional seniority to candidates from the same recruitment advertisement.

The Tribunal reasoned that the delay in the petitioners' appointments was not due to any fault of their own but was the result of protracted litigation that was eventually resolved in their favor by the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that since the Supreme Court had upheld the original selection process of 2012, the appointments should logically relate back to the period when the selection was finalized and other candidates in the same batch were appointed.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that the quashing of the list by the High Court terminated all rights, noting that the Supreme Court's reversal restored the validity of the original process.

Applying the principle of parity, the Tribunal found that the applicants were on the same footing as those in TA No. 9113/2020; thus, denying them notional seniority from 03.11.2012 would be discriminatory and arbitrary.

It held that the petitioners are entitled to notional appointment and seniority from 03.11.2012, the date on which similarly situated candidates were originally appointed.

The Tribunal ordered that while seniority and other service benefits shall be granted notionally from 2012, actual monetary benefits (salary) shall only be payable from the date the petitioners actually joined their duties.

The respondents were directed to implement these benefits within three months.