1. Dispute regarding denial of arrear pay following retrospective promotion after the removal of punishment orders for employees in materially similar situations. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 865
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : U.C.Banerjee
S.M.Mansoor
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 4474 of 1999
Date of Decision : 8/16/99
Similarly situated employees facing identical circumstances and punishments are entitled to equal relief. A court cannot distinguish between such employees in granting benefits, such as arrears of pay, without providing specific and reasoned justifications for the differentiation.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Arrears of Pay - Equality of Treatment - Denial of arrears of pay to an employee while granting the same to another similarly situated employee without providing specific reasons is erroneous - Where two employees are placed in similar situations, proceeded against on similar charges, and visited with the same punishment, they are entitled to similar relief upon the removal of such punishment, regardless of whether the punishment was quashed by a court or recalled by the government. (Paras 4, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Two employees were subjected to the same punishment of stoppage of increments on similar charges. In one instance, the punishment order was quashed by the High Court, and in the other, it was recalled by the government. Both were subsequently promoted to higher posts but were denied arrear pay. A joint writ petition was filed, but the High Court granted relief only to one of the employees, declining it for the other based on a departmental circular without providing specific reasons for the distinction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the cases of the two employees were similar on all material aspects. The lower court failed to provide any discussion or reason for making a distinction between the two petitioners, and the Division Bench similarly declined to interfere without providing specific reasons.
Issues: Whether the High Court committed an error in denying arrears of pay to one employee while granting such relief to another similarly situated employee.
Ratio Decidendi: When employees are in similar situations and the proceedings are based on similar facts, the court cannot decline similar relief to one without providing specific and valid reasons for the distinction.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims lack of reasoning for distinguishing similar cases; respondent argues relief depends on specific court directions and departmental policy. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. The High Court erred by failing to provide specific reasons for distinguishing between two employees whose cases were similar on all material aspects. (Para 7 )
4. Similarly situated employees must be treated equally, and any distinction in the grant of relief must be supported by specific reasoning. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; respondents directed to consider grant of arrear pay to the appellant on par with the other employee. (Para 8 )
6. Whether a court can deny relief to one petitioner while granting it to another in a joint petition when their situations are materially similar?
A court cannot decline similar relief to one party while granting it to another in a materially similar situation without providing specific reasons for making such a distinction. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Whether a departmental circular can be used to deny relief to an employee without further reasoning when a similarly situated employee has been granted such relief?
No. Simply citing a departmental circular without providing a detailed discussion or specific reasons to justify the distinction between similarly situated employees is insufficient to deny relief. (Para 7 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court committed an error in denying arrears of pay to the appellant S.M. Mansoor while it granted such relief to the other petitioner Md. Ali.
(4) THE thrust of the submission of Shri P.S. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant and Md. Ali were both placed in similar situation and the case pleaded by them in the writ petition was similar. Indeed, both of them were proceeded against on similar charges and were visited with the same order of punishment of stoppage of increments. In the case of Md. Ali the High Court quashed the punishment order, whereas in the case of the appellant the State Government itself recalled the order of punishment. Thereafter both the persons were given promotion to the higher posts but denied arrear pay. Faced with the situation they jointly filed the writ petition which was disposed of by the impugned order.
(5) THE further submission of Shri Mishra is that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench gave any specific reason for making a distinction between the case of Md. Ali and that of the appellant.
(6) THE contention of Shri B.B. Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents on the other hand is that Md. Ali was given arrear pay in pursuance of the directions of the High Court and since there was no such specific direction in favour of the appellant the relief was not granted to him. He further contends that no other employee of the Department getting retrospective promotion has been given arrear pay from the date of such retrospective promotion.
(7) ON a perusal of the records we find ample substance in the contention raised by Shri P.S. Mishra. From the materials on record it is clear that the case of the two employees i.e. the appellant and Md. Ali were similar on all material aspects. The learned Single Judge after discussing the case issued a direction to the Food Commissioner as well as the Finance Commissioner to examine the matter regarding claim of arrear pay to Md. Ali (Petitioner 1 in the WP) and pass a fresh order, but so far as the appellant (Petitioner 2 in the writ petition) is concerned, the learned Judge simply declined to issue similar direction in view of Finance Department Circular No. 2074 dated 14-4-1985. No discussion was made and no reason was stated in support of the order so far as the appellant was concerned. The Division Bench declined to interfere in the matter again without giving any specific reason for making a distinction in the case of the appellant.
(8) CONSIDERING the close similarity in the cases of the two employees and the entire proceeding having been taken on similar facts and situation we are of the view that the High Court erred in declining the appellant similar relief as in the case of Md. Ali. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the High Court so far as the appellant is concerned, are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for grant of arrear pay from the relevant date and pass similar orders as in the case of Md. Ali. This order is passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and will not be used as a precedent for other cases. There will be no order as to costs.
