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

The petitioner was initially engaged as a temporary Jail Warder for 89 days from 1 January 1993 and was thereafter continuously continued in service through artificial one-day breaks. His services were eventually regularized with effect from 28 December 2006 pursuant to directions of the State Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner claimed that similarly situated employees, including Smt. Sarojini Katare, Smt. Shyama Rajput, Smt. Shobha Shrivastava and Smt. Usha Arya, had been granted regularization with effect from 4 July 2003, together with consequential benefits.

The petitioner submitted a representation seeking similar treatment, but the respondents rejected his claim by orders dated 9 July 2024 and 22 August 2024. He consequently invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking regularization from 4 July 2003, revision of terminal and retiral benefits, arrears and interest.

The State opposed the claim but was unable to distinguish the petitioner’s case from the precedent relied upon by him.

1. Whether the petitioner, being similarly situated to employees who had been regularized with effect from 4 July 2003, was entitled to regularization from that date and to consequential service and retiral benefits?

2. Whether the delay in approaching the Court disentitled the petitioner from claiming the benefit of regularization and consequential benefits?

3. Whether the orders rejecting the petitioner’s claim were liable to be quashed?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce the petitioner’s claim to equal treatment in service matters.

It applied the principle that similarly situated employees must ordinarily be treated alike under Article 14, relying on State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, which holds that extending relief to one group of identically situated employees while denying it to others is discriminatory, subject to exceptions such as laches, acquiescence and the status of fence-sitters.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, for the principle that delay may not defeat claims involving a continuing wrong, particularly matters concerning pension, payment, refixation and recurring service benefits.

The Court further referred to Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055, for the principle that pensionary and retiral benefits constitute a continuing cause of action, although arrears may be restricted in accordance with limitation principles.

The Court found that the petitioner’s initial appointment preceded, or was comparable to, the appointments of the employees who had received regularization from 4 July 2003. Since those employees had been granted the benefit on the basis of their substantially similar service history, the petitioner could not be denied the same treatment without a valid distinguishing circumstance.

The State failed to distinguish the petitioner’s case from the earlier decision in which similarly situated Jail Warders were directed to be regularized from 4 July 2003 with consequential benefits.

The Court treated the continuing denial of proper regularization and its effect on pensionary and terminal benefits as a continuing wrong. Accordingly, the delay in filing the writ petition was not considered fatal, particularly because the petitioner had submitted a representation asserting parity before approaching the Court.

The rejection orders were therefore found inconsistent with the principle of equal treatment in service jurisprudence.

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 receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The impugned rejection orders were consequently set aside to the extent they denied the petitioner the claimed parity.

Any pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.