Similarly situated employees are entitled to retrospective regularization and consequential benefits from the parity date.

The petitioner, a Jail Warder, claimed that he had initially been appointed on 1 January 1993 for 89 days and thereafter continuously worked through repeated extensions involving artificial one-day breaks. His services were subsequently regularized from 28 December 2006.

He sought retrospective regularization from 4 July 2003, together with consequential terminal, pensionary and other service benefits, on the ground that similarly situated employees had been granted regularization from that date.

The petitioner relied upon the decision in W.P. No. 15213/2024 and connected matters, decided on 1 September 2026, wherein similarly situated Jail Warders were directed to be regularized from 4 July 2003 with consequential benefits.

The State opposed the petition but was unable to distinguish the petitioner’s case from that precedent.

1. Whether the petitioner, being similarly situated to Jail Warders who were granted regularization from 4 July 2003, was entitled to identical retrospective regularization and consequential service benefits?

2. Whether delay in approaching the Court defeated the petitioner’s claim for retrospective regularization and pensionary or terminal benefits?

The Court applied the principle of equality in service matters under Article 14 of the Constitution, namely that identically situated employees should ordinarily receive identical benefits.

It relied on State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, which holds that similarly situated employees should be treated alike, subject to exceptions based on delay, laches or acquiescence, particularly where a claimant is merely a fence-sitter.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, for the principle that delay does not defeat claims based on a continuing wrong, including claims concerning pay fixation, pension and recurring service benefits.

It further relied upon Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055, which recognized pensionary and consequential retiral benefits as giving rise to a continuing cause of action, while limiting arrears in appropriate cases.

The Court also followed the coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 15213/2024 and connected matters, which directed retrospective regularization from 4 July 2003.

The Court found that the petitioner’s case was indistinguishable from the cases decided in W.P. No. 15213/2024 and connected matters.

The relevant employees had been appointed as Jail Warders in the early 1990s, continuously engaged through artificial breaks, and later regularized, but were granted the benefit of regularization from 4 July 2003 because similarly situated employees, including Smt. Sarojini Katare, had received that benefit.

Since the State could not identify any material factual or legal distinction, denial of the same benefit to the petitioner would constitute unequal treatment under Article 14.

The Court further held that the petitioner’s claim involved a continuing wrong concerning regularization and consequential service or retiral benefits; therefore, delay did not bar relief.

The earlier decision was consequently directed to apply to the petitioner mutatis mutandis.

The respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner’s services with effect from 4 July 2003, the date from which the similarly situated employees had been regularized, and to extend all consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Any pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.