The court held that all similarly situated employees are entitled to DACP benefits as per applicable policy, regardless of their prior litigation status, reinforcing nondiscriminatory principles in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners in this petition prays for a direction in a nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to revise and refix the benefits and grant them DACP and consequential benefits as per the 5^th and 6^th Pay Revision from 05.04.2002 and 29.10.2008 in light of the observations made in order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.86 of 2018. They further prayed that a direction may be given to the respondent authorities to release the arrears and all consequential benefits after refixation of DACP benefits.

3. The petitioners are the persons from Medical Cadre.

4. Admittedly, the DACP scheme was floated and the same has been extended to all the persons of Medical Cadre. The cut-off date was fixed by the Government. Later on, it was modified to 01.09.2008, vide Resolution dated 11.09.2013. Earlier the said scheme was made effective from 05.04.2002 in light of 5^th Pay Revision and benefit of DACP w.e.f., 29.10.2008 in the light of the 6^th Pay Revision. The benefits were granted w.e.f., 05.04.2002 and the actual benefit from 29.10.2008 and the financial benefit from 01.04.2009. Pursuant to the order dated 11.09.2013, the Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand issued a Notification dated 15.01.2014 whereby benefits of DACP granted to all the eligible employees vide Notification dated 02.04.2013 was withdrawn. Being aggrieved, some of the employees filed writ petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed. Challenging the order of the writ Court, LPA No.86 of 2018 was filed. The said Letters Patent Appeal was heard and decided by Division Bench of this Court. Letters Patent Appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2023, allowed the Letters Patent Appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It was held that shifting of the date was not proper. The order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.52346 of 2023. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.02.2024, dismissed the Special Leave Petition, keeping open the question of law.

5. Since the order has been passed by the Division Bench holding that the shifting of the date of DACP is not proper, these petitioners who were affected by shifting of such date has now approached this Court claiming the same benefit which was granted to the litigations who had approached this Court by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.86 of 2018.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that since similar benefit has been granted to similarly situated persons, the fact that the petitioners have not earlier approached the Court, cannot come in their way to get the same benefits. It is stated what has been decided in Letters Patent Appellate Court is that shifting of the date is bad. Once it has been held that the shifting of the date is bad, consequential benefits should be granted not only to the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal but also to other similarly situated person who was put at a disadvantageous position due to shifting of the said date.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that admittedly the petitioners did not file any writ petition challenging the action of respondents by which the dates were shifted and rather they have approached this Court now for the first time. He submits that the petitioners were fence sitters, thus they are not entitled to get any relief.

8. The admitted facts is that the date of DACP was changed by the State by virtue of a Resolution which was ultimately set aside by the Division Benc