Similarly situated employees are entitled to parity in service benefits despite delayed appointment due to employer-led litigation.

The applicant, Mahesh Kumar, applied for the post of Constable in the Delhi Police following a 1995 advertisement. Although he was placed on the merit list, the respondents raised disputes regarding his OBC certificate, leading to litigation

Following a court decision in his favor, he joined the service in the year 2000

The applicant contends that his late joinder was due to the respondents' actions, not his own fault. Consequently, he filed a representation on January 30, 2026, seeking notional seniority from 1996, antedated promotion to Head Constable from 2008, and MACP benefits effective from 2006 and 2016 to maintain parity with his batchmates

Having received no response to his representation, he approached the Tribunal

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and decide upon the applicant's representation regarding notional seniority and consequential benefits in light of established judicial precedents

The Tribunal relied on the principle of parity in service jurisprudence as articulated by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Ors vs. C. Lalitha (2006), which postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly and that justice demands an employee receive what is due in law without being forced into repetitive litigation

the Tribunal considered the precedent set in OA No. 3601/2019 (decided on 13.02.2026), where pay fixation at par with juniors from the same selection process was granted to similarly situated employees

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s delay in joining was attributed to litigation initiated by the respondents' objections to his certificate rather than any personal lapse

The applicant argued that he is a "similarly situated" employee entitled to the same benefits granted to his batchmates in previous judicial orders

Given that the applicant's representation dated January 30, 2026, remained pending, the Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the administrative authorities to exercise their power to decide the matter. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits or the statutory limitation of the claims but emphasized that the respondents must evaluate the request through a reasoned and speaking order, specifically considering the legal principles regarding parity and notional benefits for delayed appointments established in the cited precedents

It directed the respondents to decide the applicant’s representation dated January 30, 2026, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy of the judgment

No costs were awarded