The Central Administrative Tribunal has reaffirmed that the principle of equality under Article 14 mandates uniform treatment for similarly situated government employees when a legal benefit has been granted to one group. This judgment clarifies that administrative delay or pending legal challenges cannot justify discriminatory denial of entitlements already recognized by a binding tribunal order.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, four employees of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), were initially appointed as Khalasi (Group C posts) and later promoted to Wireman. They sought classification in the "Highly Skilled" category for the post of Electrician, effective from the date they passed the prescribed trade test. Their claim was based on an earlier tribunal decision in TA No. 108/2013, which had granted identical relief to other CPWD employees.
Key Facts
- The applicants passed the trade test on the following dates:
- Rajender Parsad Singh: 21.07.1999
- Matwar Singh: 29.04.1998
- Raman Kumar Sharma: 02.01.1996
- Nand Kishore: 06.10.2001
- All applicants were otherwise eligible for the Highly Skilled category upon passing the trade test.
- A similar case, TA No. 108/2013 (Mangat Ram), was decided by the CAT on 13.11.2014, holding that employees qualifying the trade test are entitled to classification as Highly Skilled with notional pay fixation from the date of passing the test.
- The respondents implemented the TA No. 108/2013 order through an order dated 01.10.2015, granting benefits to the beneficiaries of that case.
- The present applicants submitted representations seeking similar benefits on multiple occasions.
- The respondents rejected the claims by order dated 17.09.2018, citing the need to obtain legal opinion to challenge the TA No. 108/2013 judgment.
Procedural History
- 02.01.1996 to 06.10.2001: Individual applicants passed the trade test for Electrician.
- 13.11.2014: CAT in TA No. 108/2013 held that trade test qualifiers are entitled to Highly Skilled classification from date of passing.
- 01.10.2015: Respondents implemented the TA No. 108/2013 order for the beneficiaries.
- 23.07.2018: Applicants submitted representations seeking benefit of the 2014 order.
- 17.09.2018: Respondents issued impugned order denying relief, citing pending legal opinion.
- 20.04.2026: OA No. 2424/2019 was reserved for order.
- ___.04.2026: Order pronounced by the CAT.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 17.09.2018
- Classification as Highly Skilled from the date of passing the trade test
- Notional and actual monetary benefits including arrears
- Inclusion of all consequential benefits in pay and allowances
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 14 of the Constitution requires the state to extend identical benefits to similarly situated employees once a tribunal order has been implemented for a prior group, and whether administrative inaction based on pending legal challenges can justify discriminatory treatment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicants relied on State of U.P. & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. (2014) to argue that denial of benefits to identically placed employees violates the principle of equality. They contended that the CAT’s order in TA No. 108/2013 operated as a judgment in rem, binding on all similarly situated employees, not merely the parties in personam. They emphasized that the respondents had already implemented the order for others, making their refusal arbitrary and discriminatory.
For the Respondent
The respondents conceded that the applicants were similarly placed but argued that the impugned order was not a final denial but a temporary suspension pending legal opinion on the validity of the TA No. 108/2013 judgment. They claimed that administrative prudence required caution before extending benefits to a broader class.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the settled doctrine under Article 14 that similarly situated persons must be treated alike, absent reasonable classification. It noted that the respondents had already accepted and implemented the CAT’s 2014 order in TA No. 108/2013, thereby acknowledging its legal validity and operational effect.
"Once the respondents have accepted and implemented the Tribunal's order in respect of one set of employees, they cannot adopt a discriminatory approach in respect of others similarly situated."
The Court rejected the argument that seeking legal opinion justified delay. It held that such a ground, if accepted, would permit indefinite postponement of rights already recognized by a judicial authority. The Tribunal emphasized that the principle of equality is not contingent on the state’s internal deliberations or litigation strategy.
The Court distinguished between notional fixation (which had been granted in TA No. 108/2013) and actual monetary benefits. While the earlier case had restricted relief to notional pay to balance equities, the respondents’ inaction here had caused real financial prejudice. The Tribunal therefore granted actual arrears from the date of the impugned order (17.09.2018) to ensure justice without rewarding delay.
The Verdict
The applicants succeeded. The impugned order dated 17.09.2018 was quashed. The respondents are directed to classify the applicants as "Highly Skilled" from their respective dates of passing the trade test. Benefits prior to 17.09.2018 are confined to notional fixation. Actual monetary benefits with arrears shall be paid from 17.09.2018. No interest is payable on arrears. The exercise must be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equal Treatment Is Not Discretionary
- Public employers cannot withhold benefits granted to one group of employees from another identically placed group, even if they intend to challenge the original order.
- Administrative hesitation or pending litigation cannot override constitutional mandates under Article 14.
Implementation Triggers Obligation
- Once a tribunal or court order is implemented for one set of employees, the state is bound to extend the same benefit to all others in the same class.
- Delay in implementation cannot be used as a tool to deny rights retroactively.
Notional vs Actual Relief: A Balanced Approach
- Tribunals may restrict relief to notional fixation to avoid windfalls, but if the state’s inaction causes prolonged deprivation, actual arrears from the date of denial become justifiable.
- Practitioners must now argue for actual arrears when delay by the employer has caused financial harm, even if the original judgment granted only notional relief.
No Interest, But No Delay Either
- The Tribunal explicitly denied interest on arrears, signaling that while rights are protected, claimants cannot profit from procedural delays.
- This creates a clear incentive for employers to act promptly once a legal principle is established.
Precedent as a Binding Standard
- Judgments in service matters that define entitlements for a defined class (e.g., trade test qualifiers) operate as judgments in rem, not merely in personam.
- This reinforces the authority of tribunals to lay down uniform standards applicable across departments and regions.
