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

The petitioner sought regularization of his services with effect from 4 July 2003 and consequential revision of his terminal benefits, relying on the treatment given to similarly situated employees.

He submitted that the controversy had already been decided in W.P. No. 15213 of 2024; the State opposed the claim but could not distinguish the petitioner’s case from that decision.

In the order relied upon, the Court had found that comparable jail warders were regularized from 4 July 2003, while the petitioner’s representation seeking the same benefit had been rejected.

Whether the petitioner was entitled, on grounds of parity, to regularization from 4 July 2003, the date granted to similarly situated employees.

Whether the petitioner’s claim could be granted in the same terms as the decision in W.P. No. 15213 of 2024.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may grant appropriate relief where State action denies equal treatment to similarly situated employees.

The Court relied on the principle in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive the same benefit, subject to exceptions including delay, laches and acquiescence; it also relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, for the principle that a continuing wrong, including in matters of recurring service or pensionary consequences, may affect the application of delay and laches.

The incorporated order also referred to Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055, concerning pensionary and consequential retiral benefits and the treatment of arrears.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s controversy was covered by the decision in W.P. No. 15213 of 2024 and that the State had not shown a material factual distinction.

In the incorporated decision, the Court had held that denying the petitioner the date of regularization granted to comparable employees would be unjustified, and that the claim involved a continuing wrong for which delay and laches did not bar relief.

Applying that decision mutatis mutandis, the Court extended the same relief to the present petitioner.

The respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner’s services with effect from 4 July 2003 and extend all consequential benefits within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Any pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.