#equality in employment

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that denying actual promotion benefits while granting them to similarly situated employees constitutes discrimination under Article 14. The court directed regularization from the date of assuming charge, ensuring full consequential benefits including pay arrears and seniority, reinforcing equality in employment.

CAT Jammu rules that denying promotion benefits to a senior employee while granting them to a junior in identical circumstances violates constitutional guarantees of equality. The tribunal directs the respondents to extend the same benefits to the applicant as granted to respondent No. 5, ensuring parity in compassionate appointments under service law.

The Supreme Court ruled that denying promotion to a senior employee with 28 years of service, while granting it to similarly situated peers despite identical educational deficiencies, constitutes arbitrary classification under Articles 14 and 16. This sets a critical precedent for promotional fairness in public and cooperative service structures where rigid qualification norms cannot override substantive equality and seniority-based equity.

CAT Allahabad rules that denial of promotion despite higher marks and an unfilled vacancy violates principles of equality in employment. The tribunal directs notional promotion with retrospective benefits, setting a precedent for service jurisprudence where administrative discretion cannot override merit-based entitlements.

Rajasthan High Court rules that restricting contractual hiring eligibility to degree holders, when past practice recognized diploma holders, violates the principle of legitimate expectation and equality in employment. The court directed provisional acceptance of applications from diploma holders, emphasizing administrative consistency in recruitment.