Government service personnel must receive equal treatment regarding pay and benefits based on seniority and circumstances, ensuring no discrimination occurs among similarly situated individuals.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J. The petitioner appeared for appointment to the post of SI/GD through LDCE-2013 against the unreserved vacancies available for year 2013/2014. Despite successfully qualifying the written examination, his candidature for appointment was rejected on account of endorsement of Non-Qualifying Service (NQS) of 29 days over stay leave, which period was duly regularized as 29 days Leave Half Pay with No Leave Salary (LHF-WNLS), during the scrutiny of testimonials/documents as part of Stage IV of SO no. 01/2010.

2. This led to the first round of litigation when the petitioner filed writ petition entitled CT/GD Ashok Kumar Ors. vs Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 9973/2016, wherein this Court vide order dated 09.08.2017 held that mere absence which has been regularized by half pay leave or even warning may not be sufficient to declare the petitioner as disqualified and that the petitioner would be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector in accordance with law and he would not be treated as disqualified for want of clean or unblemished records for the "act of absence".

3. Pursuant to his appointment as SI/GD on 26.04.2018, the petitioner vide GC-1 CRPF, Ajmer Office Order No R-II-I/2018-EC6(SI/LDCE-2013) dated 26.04.2018, was placed in the pay matrix, Level 6 of Rs.35,400/- and his seniority was fixed with effect from 28.03.2014 in terms of his position in the overall merit list drawn on conclusion of LDCE-2013.

4. Despite that, as per the gradation list SI/GD (Male/Female) as on 01.12.2017 (corrected up to 30.04.2018) by the Dte. Gen. CRPF, the petitioner was not entitled to draw pay and allowances at par with his similarly situated batch-mates, who were so appointed to the post of SI/GD with effect from 28.03.2014 and was given discriminatory treatment.

5. Thus, the petitioner vide legal notice dated 24.07.2019 called upon the respondents to extend the benefits of the pay parity viz. fixation of pay and allowances along with the increments and the link in the rank of SI/GD, through LDCE-2013 with effect from 28.03.2014 as was done in the case of similarly situated persons. The respondent no.3 vide reponse dated 15.09.2020 apprised the petitioner that though the petitioner has been given seniority with effect from 28.04.2014 at par with his batch-mates, but he is not entitled to draw pay and allowances at par with his batch-mates. Receipt of the above non-satisfactory response led to the second round of litigation before us in the form of the present writ petition wherein the petitioner claims the following reliefs:

"a) Call for the records of the case

b) Issue appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s) in nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the pay parity viz Notional fixation of pay and allowances along with increments and like in the post of SI/GD at par with his batchmates, so appointed to the post SI/GD through LDCE-2013, w.e.f. 29.03.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 7591/2016

c) Issue appropriate writ, order(s) or direction to the respondents to pay costs of this petition to the petitioner for compelling him to approach this Hon'ble Court for indulgence to seek justice"

6. This being the second round of litigation filed by the petitioner against the respondents before us, the issue is very limited.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that being similarly situated with his batch-mates