Similarly situated employees are entitled to retrospective regularization and consequential benefits under Supreme Court directives.

The Petitioner, an employee seeking regularization, challenged the legality of an order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench, in Original Application No. 879/2011.

The CAT had previously refused the Petitioner’s claim for regularization, which was based on the principles established in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India.

The Petitioner contended that his case is identical to that of the appellants in Ravi Verma Ors. v. Union of India Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2795-2796 of 2018), where the Supreme Court set aside the same common CAT order dated 11.10.2013.

The Respondents opposed the petition primarily on the grounds of delay and laches.

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to regularization of service effective from 01.07.2006 in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravi Verma Ors. v. Union of India, which set aside the underlying CAT order affecting similarly situated employees.

The Court applied the "one-time measure" regularization principle established in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006) 1 SCC 1, specifically Paragraph 53, which permits the regularization of irregularly (not illegally) appointed persons who have served for ten years or more in sanctioned posts without the cover of court orders.

It further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ravi Verma Ors. v. Union of India Ors. (2018), which held that denying regularization to such employees constituted discriminatory treatment and mandated regularization effective from 01.07.2006.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s situation was identical to the appellants in the Ravi Verma case.

It noted that the Supreme Court had already scrutinized the CAT order dated 11.10.2013 and determined that the employees therein were entitled to regularization under the Umadevi guidelines, as they had not served under the cover of court orders and their appointments were merely irregular.

The Court reasoned that since the Supreme Court had already set aside the very order impugned in this petition for similarly situated persons, the Petitioner could not be denied the same relief.

The Respondents' argument regarding delay and laches was disregarded in favor of parity and the binding nature of the Supreme Court's reversal of the common CAT order.

The Court directed the Respondents to regularize the Petitioner’s services effective from 01.07.2006 and grant all consequential benefits within three months.

Failure to comply within the stipulated period would attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the consequential benefits.

No costs were awarded.