Similarly situated employees are entitled to the benefits of settled judicial precedents regardless of being party to litigation.

The applicant, an Additional Commissioner with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), sought the antedating of his regular promotions to various grades, including Regional Director Grade ‘B’ and Insurance Commissioner (w.e.f. 01.07.2018)

He claimed parity with the judgment in OA No. 4167/2012 (Principal Bench), which was affirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 2723/2014 (UOI v. Awadesh Prasad Tripathy)

The respondents had previously refused the applicant’s representation on the grounds that he was not a party to the Delhi High Court proceedings and that an SLP was pending

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP on 11.02.2025

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the extension of benefits granted in OA No. 4167/2012 and affirmed in W.P. (C) No. 2723/2014 on the grounds of being a similarly situated employee

2. Whether the pendency of a review petition or the fact that the applicant was not a party to the original litigation precludes the grant of relief

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It relied on the legal principle of parity in service matters, whereby benefits of a judgment rendered in favor of one set of employees should be extended to all similarly circumstanced employees to prevent unnecessary litigation.

This was applied in the context of the finalized judgment in UOI v. Awadesh Prasad Tripathy & Ors., following the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Tribunal observed that the primary obstacle cited by the respondents—the pending SLP—was removed following its dismissal by the Supreme Court on 11.02.2025

Although the respondents argued that a review petition had been filed and that the applicant was not an original party to the Awadesh Prasad Tripathy case, the Tribunal emphasized the need for the administration to determine if the applicant is "similarly circumstanced"

The Tribunal reasoned that if the applicant’s case is indeed covered by the precedent established by the Principal Bench and the Delhi High Court, the respondents are duty-bound to extend those consequential benefits regardless of whether the applicant was a named party in the previous litigation

It held that if the applicant is found to be similarly situated to the litigants in that case, the benefits of antedated promotion and other consequential reliefs must be extended to him

The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise within three months from the date of receipt of the order

No order as to costs was made