Employees similarly situated to those who have previously been granted benefits by court order are entitled to identical relief, as discrimination in such matters violates the constitutional principle of equality.

PRAYER – This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that we are entitled to receive annual increment in terms of Clause 3 of the Settlement dated 21.01.2011 entered under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as received by other Senior Assistants/Supervisors with effect from 07.05.2010 and consequently, direct the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners as fixed in

terms of the Settlement by paying the two additional increments at the rate of 3% of the basic pay.

For Petitioner: Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents: Mr.Ramasamy Maiyappan

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to receive annual increments in terms of Clause 3 of the Settlement dated 21.01.2011, entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on par with other Senior Assistants/Supervisors with effect from 07.05.2010. Consequently, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to fix and pay their salary in terms of the said Settlement, including the two additional increments at the rate of 3% of the basic pay.

The primary grievance of the petitioners is that they have been denied the benefits of the Settlement dated 21.01.2011 executed between the petitioners and the second respondent. By failing to adhere to the terms of the Settlement, the second respondent unlawfully disallowed the two additional increments. Under identical circumstances, thirteen similarly placed employees approached this Hon'ble Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.5509 of 2014. This Court, by an order dated 21.08.2023, allowed that petition and directed the respondents to pay the salary fixed under the settlement dated

21.01.2011 along with the two additional increments at the rate of 3% of the basic pay. The petitioners herein, being similarly situated, are entitled to identical relief.

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record. It is not in dispute that the settlement dated 21.01.2011 was entered into under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The grievance of the petitioners is confined to the denial of two additional increments at the rate of 3% of the basic pay, though similarly placed employees were extended the said benefit pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5509 of 2014 dated 21.08.2023.

When employees similarly situated have already been granted the very same relief by this Court, the respondents cannot discriminate against the present petitioners by denying identical benefits. The principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution of India mandates equal treatment to persons similarly placed. In the absence of any distinguishing circumstances shown by the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefits flowing from the settlement dated 21.01.2011, including the two additional increments.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefits of the settlement dated 21.01.2011 to the petitioners and to fix and disburse their salary by granting the two additional increments at the rate of 3% of the basic pay, on par with similarly placed employees, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.