Similarly situated non-appellants cannot be denied pay parity solely because earlier relief was appellant-specific.

Assistants and Senior Stenographers in NIEPA were historically placed in the same pay scales as their corresponding Central Government employees.

After the Fourth Central Pay Commission, Central Government Assistants and Grade C Stenographers were granted the higher scale of Rs. 1640–2900 with effect from 1 January 1986, but the benefit was not initially extended to similarly placed NIEPA employees.

In Yogeshwar Prasad v. NIEPA , the Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to the scale of Rs. 1640–2900 under NIEPA Regulation 4(2), while confining the operative benefit to the appellants in that case.

Following that judgment, NIEPA’s Board of Management identified the four present Petitioners as “similarly placed” employees and approved extension of the benefit, subject to approval of the Ministry of Human Resource Development.

NIEPA provisionally extended the revised scale to them by Office Order dated 2 November 2012 and refixed their pay.

In 2017, MHRD declined approval, principally relying on the appellant-specific limitation in Yogeshwar Prasad . Recovery was subsequently directed, and NIEPA’s Board reaffirmed the decision in 2019.

The Petitioners challenged the rejection, recovery direction, Board decision and recovery memoranda.

During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in Anjali Arora v. Union of India held that non-appellants could be considered for the benefit of Yogeshwar Prasad if they were similarly situated to its successful appellants.

Whether the Petitioners, though not parties to Yogeshwar Prasad , were entitled to be considered for and receive the same pay-scale benefit on the basis that NIEPA itself had found them similarly situated to the successful appellants.

Whether the appellant-specific direction in Yogeshwar Prasad constituted an absolute bar against extending the benefit to similarly placed non-appellants.

Whether the Respondents’ subsequent refusal of approval, withdrawal of the benefit and recovery of amounts already paid were legally sustainable in the absence of any identified factual distinction or allegation of fraud or misrepresentation.

Whether the Petitioners were barred by delay, laches, acquiescence or the principle stated in State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava .

Regulation 4(2) of the NIEPA Service Regulations requires Group B, C and D employees to draw salary and allowances in the scales applicable to corresponding Central Government categories.

Regulation 6(A)(iii), as relied upon by the Respondents, concerns the requirement of Government approval for revision of pay scales, although the Court found it unnecessary to conclusively determine whether prior approval was mandatory in the present case.

In Yogeshwar Prasad v. NIEPA , (2010) 14 SCC 323, the Supreme Court recognised the entitlement of similarly categorised NIEPA Assistants and Stenographers to the scale of Rs. 1640–2900 and rejected NIEPA’s attempt to distinguish them on the basis of duties and responsibilities.

In Anjali Arora v. Union of India , the Supreme Court clarified that the appellant-specific limitation in Yogeshwar Prasad was not an absolute bar and that similarly situated non-appellants could be considered for equivalent relief.

State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava , (2015) 1 SCC 347, recognises that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive similar treatment, subject to delay, laches or acquiescence.

The Court also applied the principles against recovery of payments made without fraud or misrepresentation recognised in Yogeshwar Prasad , Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar , (2009) 3 SCC 475, and State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih , (2015) 4 SCC 334.

The Court held that Anjali Arora directly answered the Respondents’ reliance on the appellant-specific limitation in Yogeshwar Prasad : the relevant test was not whether an employee had been a party to the earlier litigation, but whether the employee was similarly situated to the successful appellants.

The Respondents’ own records repeatedly classified the four Petitioners as similarly placed, first when the benefit was approved in 2011, again when it was provisionally implemented in 2012, and later in the 2019 Board agenda.

The eligibility dates recorded for the Petitioners corresponded to the periods during which they held the relevant posts of Assistant or Senior Stenographer.

The Court found that neither the 2017 MHRD communication nor the 2019 Board decision identified any distinction in post, duties, qualifications, recruitment rules or service conditions.

The stated objection that the benefit had been granted without prior approval addressed only the manner of implementation and did not determine the Petitioners’ substantive entitlement.

Since the Petitioners had promptly pursued their claims after Yogeshwar Prasad , obtained provisional implementation in 2012, and challenged the recovery measures in 2019, they were not fence-sitters and were not defeated by delay or acquiescence.

The Court therefore concluded that the payments were not unlawful excess payments and that recovery could not be sustained, particularly in the absence of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation.

The Court quashed the MHRD communication dated 29 November 2017, the consequential recovery direction dated 4 December 2018, the NIEPA Board decision dated 28 March 2019, and the recovery memoranda dated 1 July 2019 insofar as they denied the Petitioners the pay benefit or directed recovery.

NIEPA was directed to extend to the Petitioners the benefit of the Rs. 1640–2900 scale and its corresponding replacement scales from their respective dates of eligibility, with consequential pay refixation and recomputation of retiral and pensionary benefits.

Withheld gratuity and terminal benefits were to be released on the recomputed basis, and no recovery was permitted.

Any amount already recovered was to be restored within six weeks; delayed restoration would carry simple interest at 6% per annum.

No interest was awarded on arrears.