Similarly situated employees are entitled to retrospective regularization parity; delay does not bar claims involving continuing wrongs.

The petitioner was engaged as a temporary Jail Warder for 89 days from 24 June 1997, and his engagement was thereafter repeatedly extended by imposing artificial one-day breaks.

Pursuant to earlier proceedings before the State Administrative Tribunal, his services were regularised with effect from 16 December 2008.

The petitioner relied on the regularisation of Smt. Sarojini Katare from 4 July 2003 pursuant to W.P. No. 8256 of 2009, and the subsequent extension of the same benefit to Smt. Shyama Rajput, Smt. Shobha Shrivastava and Smt. Usha Arya pursuant to W.P. No. 8189 of 2021.

His representation seeking parity was rejected by the respondents, leading to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner, being similarly situated to employees who were granted regularisation with effect from 4 July 2003, was entitled to the same date of regularisation and consequential benefits under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner’s delay in approaching the Court disentitled him from claiming parity with the similarly situated employees.

Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for retrospective regularisation was liable to be quashed.

The Court applied Article 14 of the Constitution, which requires similarly situated employees to receive equal treatment, and Article 226 concerning judicial review of arbitrary administrative action.

Relying on State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Court held that employees similarly situated to those who have obtained judicial relief should ordinarily receive the same benefit, subject to exceptions of laches, acquiescence and the status of fence-sitters.

It further relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, for the principle that delay may not defeat a claim founded on a continuing wrong, particularly in matters involving recurring service, pay or pensionary consequences.

The Court also followed the parity principle applied in Smt. Shyama Rajput v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 8189 of 2021, where employees similarly situated to Smt. Sarojini Katare were directed to be regularised from 4 July 2003 with consequential benefits.

The decision additionally referred to Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055, concerning continuing causes of action and the treatment of delayed service-related claims.

The Court found that the petitioner and the employees who had received regularisation from 4 July 2003 were similarly situated temporary Jail Warders whose services had been continued through artificial breaks.

Since the respondents had extended the benefit of retrospective regularisation to Smt. Sarojini Katare and thereafter to Smt. Shyama Rajput, Smt. Shobha Shrivastava and Smt. Usha Arya, denying the same benefit to the petitioner without a distinguishing basis amounted to unequal treatment.

The Court rejected the objection of delay, holding that the petitioner’s claim concerned a continuing service-related wrong and that his representation demonstrated that he had actively asserted his entitlement after becoming aware of the earlier orders.

Applying the principles of parity and continuing cause of action, the Court concluded that the impugned rejection could not be sustained.

The order dated 18 July 2025 rejecting the petitioner’s claim was quashed.

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

Any pending application was disposed of, with no separate order as to costs recorded.