Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6586
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, J, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Ram Piyari – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
O.A. No. 447/2021
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment and Parity of Service Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The applicant, widow of a deceased teacher appointed on compassionate grounds as Lab Bearer in 1995, sought parity with respondent no. 5, a junior appointee. Respondent no. 5, through litigation, secured promotion to Lab Assistant and Teacher. The applicant's claim for similar treatment was rejected by authorities, prompting her to approach the tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection order arbitrary. It held that once a state grants benefits to a junior on grounds applicable to a senior, it must extend the same to the latter to avoid hostile discrimination. The court quashed the rejection order and directed for retroactive seniority and service benefits.
Issues: Whether a senior employee, similarly situated, is entitled to the same benefits granted to a junior employee through judicial intervention, and whether delay bars such a claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Discrimination is not permissible when employees are similarly situated and qualified; the state cannot use the excuse of 'no precedent' to deny fundamental equality to senior staff, and technical delays in filing do not permanently extinguish legitimate parity claims.
Result: Original Application allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sudesh Sharma
For the Respondents: Sudesh Magotra, Hunar Gupta
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the prayer for parity in compassionate appointment benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. assessment of seniority and similarity of status between employees. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. state's duty as a model employer to provide equal treatment without regard to individual litigation history. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. addressing delay and balancing equities in granting service benefits. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final directions for relief and implementation. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) Quash order No.DSEJ/16489-90 dated 10-05-2019 passed by the respondent No.3 by virtue of which the claim of the applicant for the post of Teacher in School Education Department was considered in view of the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court in SWP No.1626/2018 and rejected arbitrarily and without application of mind.
b) Directing the respondents to appoint/promote the applicant to the post of Teacher in Education Department on the analogy of the respondent No.5 along with all consequential benefits.
c) Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of order No. DSEJ/16489-90 dated 10.05.2019, whereby her claim for appointment/promotion to the post of Teacher in the School Education Department on the analogy of respondent No. 5 was rejected. She has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint/promote her to the post of Teacher with all consequential benefits.
3. The brief facts, as projected by the applicant, are that her husband, Late Sh. Madan Lal Sharma, was serving as Teacher in the Education Department and died in harness. Thereafter, the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds under SRO-43 as Lab Bearer vide order dated 07.08.1995. At the time of her appointment, she possessed the qualification of 10+2 and accordingly joined the post. It is the case of the applicant that respondent No. 5, namely Pankaj Kumar, was also appointed on compassionate grounds as Lab Bearer vide order dated 06.12.1995 and was adjusted in Government Higher Secondary School, Teryath, Rajouri. The applicant has pleaded that respondent No. 5 was also 10+2 at the time of his initial appointment and, therefore, both the applicant and respondent No. 5 were similarly situated. However, the applicant was appointed prior in time and was thus senior to respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 was thereafter appointed as Lab Assistant vide order dated 21.12.2013, in compliance with the instructions issued by the Administrative Department dated 01.04.2013. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Teacher vide order dated 16.07.2018. The applicant has pleaded that despite being senior to respondent No. 5 and despite being similarly situated in all material particulars, she was denied the same treatment.
4. Earlier, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing SWP No. 1623/2018, seeking consideration of her claim on the ground that respondent No. 5, who was junior to her, had been given two benefits, namely appointment as Lab Assistant and thereafter promotion as Teacher. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 13.08.2018, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and take appropriate decision thereon, keeping in view the allegation that a person junior to her had already been given two promotions. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Director School Education, Jammu considered the claim of the applicant and rejected the same vide order No. DSEJ/16489-90 dated 10.05.2019. The applicant has challenged the said order on the ground th
