Uniform Eligibility for Highly Skilled Classification Upon Passing Trade Test Regardless of Pending Legal Opinion

The four applicants, serving as Khallasis in the CPWD, sought reclassification into the "Highly Skilled" category from the dates they respectively passed their trade tests (ranging from 1996 to 2001)

They relied on a prior decision of the same Tribunal in Mangat Ram (TA No. 108/2013), which granted similar benefits to identically situated employees

The respondents rejected the applicants’ representation on 17.09.2018, stating they were seeking legal opinion to challenge the Mangat Ram verdict, despite having already implemented that order for the original litigants in 2015

Consequently, the applicants filed this Original Application (OA) seeking the quashing of the rejection order and the grant of consequential benefits

1. Whether the applicants, being identically situated to the beneficiaries of TA No. 108/2013, are entitled to classification as "Highly Skilled" from the date of passing the trade test

2. Whether the respondents can deny benefits to identically placed employees on the ground of seeking a legal opinion to challenge a previously implemented judgment

The Court primarily applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. (2014), which mandates that when a court grants a benefit to a set of employees, the authorities must extend the same benefit to all similarly situated persons unless barred by laches or acquiescence

The court further utilized the doctrine of judgments in rem, noting that decisions defining the entitlement of a specific class of employees should be applied uniformly by the administration to prevent repetitive litigation

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicants were admittedly eligible and the issue was squarely covered by the Mangat Ram case, the respondents' refusal was discriminatory

The court criticized the respondents' justification—seeking legal opinion for a challenge—noting that an order already implemented in 2015 cannot be held as a valid ground to stall the rights of other employees in 2018

To balance equities and address the delay, the Tribunal determined that while the classification should be backdated to the passing of the trade test for seniority purposes, the financial implications should be split: rewards for periods prior to the rejection order would be on a notional basis (as in the precedent), but because the respondents forced "avoidable and repetitive litigation" through their inaction, actual monetary arrears should be granted from the date of the impugned order

The respondents were directed to provide notional pay fixation from the date of passing the test until 17.09.2018, and actual monetary benefits/arrears (without interest) from 17.09.2018 onwards. The exercise must be completed within three months