Similarly situated employees are entitled to parity in the effective date of regularization.

The applicant and private respondents (Respondents 5 and 6) were engaged as Safaiwalas on a consolidated basis against clear vacancies via Order No. BMO/577-80 dated 31.12.1988

While the private respondents and other similarly situated employees were regularized on 31.03.2002, the applicant was excluded without assigned reasons

Following multiple representations, the respondents eventually regularized the applicant’s services on 30.03.2014

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking retrospective regularization effective from 31.03.2002 to achieve parity with his counterparts in seniority, pay fixation, and other service benefits

The respondents contended that the application was not maintainable as the applicant had already been regularized in 2014

1. Whether the denial of regularization to the applicant from the same date as his similarly situated counterparts (31.03.2002) constitutes arbitrary and hostile discrimination under the Constitution

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective seniority and consequential benefits despite the subsequent regularization order of 2014

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It relied on the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16, which prohibit arbitrary State action and ensure equality of opportunity in public employment

It further applied the principle of parity, established in service jurisprudence, which mandates that equals cannot be treated unequally when appointed through the same process and performing identical duties

The Tribunal also invoked Article 21, affirming that the right to livelihood includes legitimate service benefits like seniority and pension, and the principle that administrative lapses or inactions should not prejudice an employee's rights

The Tribunal observed that the applicant and the private respondents were engaged under the same order, possessed identical qualifications, and performed the same duties, making them a single class of employees

The respondents failed to produce any record, policy, or evidence of disqualification to justify why the applicant was excluded from the 2002 regularization order

By regularizing the applicant in 2014, the respondents effectively admitted the applicant’s eligibility and the initial error in his exclusion

The Tribunal reasoned that since the initial illegality was corrected by the State, such correction must relate back to the date when the benefit was originally due to prevent perpetual discrimination

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' claim that no cause of action survived, ruling that the denial of seniority and pay parity constitutes a recurring grievance

It directed the official respondents to regularize the applicant’s services effective from 31.03.2002, the date his counterparts were regularized

The Tribunal further ordered the respondents to refix the applicant's seniority and grant him all consequential benefits, specifying that he is entitled to notional monetary benefits from 31.03.2002 and actual monetary benefits as per applicable rules

These directions are to be complied with within 12 weeks