The court confirms that similarly situated individuals must receive equal treatment per Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.23.09.2022. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization was rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis along with others vide order of appointment issued on 16.05.1996 under Annexure-2. However, after long continuance, when persons appointed vide order under Annexure-2 approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.3092 & 3091 of 2015 and batch, the said Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dt.01.05.2018 under Annexure-7 inter alia directing the State-Opp. parties to regularize the services of the Petitioners therein. Pursuant to the said order and after confirmation of the same by the Apex Court in the appeal filed by the State, the order passed by the Tribunal was complied, vide order dt.28.09.2021 under Annexure-11.

4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner is similarly situated as like the persons who were regularized in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-7, Petitioner claiming similar benefit though moved the authorities, but when the same was not considered, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.33573 of 2021. This Court vide order dt.01.11.2021 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, taking into account the benefits extended in favour of the similar situated employees in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-7 so implemented vide order under Annexure-11, without proper appreciation of the same, Petitioner’s claim for regularization was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-13.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since similar benefit in favour of the similar appointees have been extended vide order under Annexure-11, Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-7, Petitioner being similarly situated cannot be discriminated.

4.3. In support of the same, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastav and Ors. (2015) 1 SCC 347), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identical situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 22 and 23 of the decision has held as follows:-

“22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.

22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

22.2. However, this principle is subject to well- recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the ben