#equal treatment

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause letting one party curate the arbitrator panel breaches Section 18’s equal treatment mandate, appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11 and affecting contracts with similar party nominated panel clauses.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that once a judicial precedent grants service benefits to a group of employees based on their initial appointment date, those benefits must be extended to all similarly situated employees, regardless of when they were formally appointed. This reinforces the principle that administrative delays or procedural gaps cannot justify unequal treatment under service law, impacting thousands of ad-hoc appointees across Uttar Pradesh.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that denying regularization to a petitioner while granting it to a similarly situated employee violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under Article 14. The decision binds authorities to extend identical benefits-including retrospective pay and seniority-to all employees in identical circumstances, reinforcing that administrative discretion cannot override the principle of non-discrimination in service matters.

Supreme Court rules that once a state adopts a regularization policy for long-serving workers, it cannot exclude others in identical circumstances without violating constitutional equality. The judgment reinforces that administrative discretion must align with legitimate expectation and non-arbitrariness under service law.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that denying reinstatement to contractual employees while reinstating others in identical roles violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The state cannot justify differential treatment based on technical contract expiry when comparable employees were reinstated without such reasoning, setting a binding precedent for equitable treatment in temporary government appointments.

Central Administrative Tribunal rules that denial of benefits to similarly placed employees after granting them to one group violates Article 14, unless laches or acquiescence is proven. The judgment directs CPWD to extend 'highly skilled' category benefits to petitioners from the date of passing their trade test, ensuring pay and arrears parity.

Government employees promoted to gazetted posts are entitled to all financial and service benefits from the date they actually assumed charge, not the notification date. The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that granting benefits retroactively from a notional date while others received them from actual posting dates violates Article 14, setting a critical precedent for equitable treatment in public service promotions.