Discrimination claims under Article 14 do not support the perpetuation of illegal benefits; equality cannot arise from unlawful actions.

Denied promotion for his lacking the qualification, an employee stagnated in the post, and later retired. He found another person, similarly situated, given the benefit of higher scale of pay by the employer. The employee claims it to be a "long - standing practice." He applies for the benefit on the principle of parity; the benefit denied, he approached this Court. The fulcrum of his case is discrimination. Has he been discriminated against? The answer: No.

2. Facts:

K. R. Viswanadhan, the petitioner, joined the respondent University on 01/08/1978 as a Gardener - cum - Road Mazdoor. During his tenure, he obtained promotions, the last one being Selection Grade Assistant in CUSAT. Though Viswanadhan's juniors were promoted to the next higher post — Section Officer — he stagnated as Selection Grade Assistant because he did not possess graduation, the basic qualification for the next promotion. Viswanadhan retired on 31/03/2011.

3. While Viswanadhan was serving, the respondent University extended the benefit of higher scale of pay to one Mr. P. A. Thomas, said to be similarly placed as Viswanadhan was. The benefit was extended because Mr. P. A. Thomas could not be promoted to a higher post for he lacked qualification. Calling this conferment of higher pay a long - standing practice in the university, Viswanadhan too sought that benefit. When the University, through Ext.P10 proceedings, refused to accede to Viswanadhan's request, he filed the writ petition.

4. Submissions:

Petitioner's:

The learned counsel for Viswanadhan has drawn my attention to Ext.P11 Senate proceedings issued by the University to hammer home his contention that Mr. P. A. Thomas, a similarly situated person, was extended the benefit. According to him, there has been a long standing practice in the University to provide higher pay to the employees not promoted on the sole ground they did not possess the qualification, to wit, graduation. In the end, the learned counsel has submitted that the respondent University by denying that benefit to Viswanadhan, it has invidiously discriminated against him. It offends Art.14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Respondent's:

The learned Standing Counsel for the University, taking me through the counter affidavit filed by the University, has submitted that barring the solitary instance of Mr. P. A. Thomas, the University has allowed no higher scale of pay to any other employee, contrary to Viswanadhan's assertion. As recorded in paragraph - 3 of the counter affidavit, Mr. P. A. Thomas's case, according to the learned Standing Counsel, is special , more particularly, because of the decision taken by the Senate of the University. To my specific query, the learned counsel has, however, failed to explain how Mr. P. A. Thomas's case can be treated as a special one. He has nevertheless insisted that was the only solitary instance.

6. The learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that by the time Mr. P. A. Thomas was extended the benefit, there was no cadre of Selection Grade Assistant; in fact, Mr. P. A. Thomas retired at a lower level. Then I queried whether Viswanadhan was promoted to the cadre of Selection Grade Assistant despite his lack of qualification, which benefit could not be extended to Mr. P. A. Thomas. The learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that Viswanadhan did have the qualification to be promoted as Selection Grade Assistant. Therefore, it could not be said that the University has extended any benefit to Viswanadhan over and above what he was entitled to.

7. Eventually, the lea