All similarly situated employees must be treated alike in service matters, ensuring no discrimination occurs, as established in service jurisprudence.

This bunch of petitions is filed by the employees of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Bhopal, being aggrieved of the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by the respondent - Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Bhopal, enclosed with the petition as Annexure P- 18 (in W.P. No.16131/2016) vide which claim of the petitioner for regularization w.e.f. 29.07.1998 and grant of consequential benefits, has been denied on the ground that initially 9 persons were appointed in the Mandi Samiti, Rehli, District Sagar. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.11.1998 (Annexure P-3-A in W.P. No.16131/2016), Managing Director of the Board noted a fact that the post of A.S.I. is part of Mandi Board Services and, therefore, Mandi Samiti had no right to make appointment on these posts on ad hoc basis. That being in violation of the provisions issued by the Government and Bye-Law No.34, that order of regularization of 9 persons was set aside.

2. As per Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents only 4 persons approached the Labour Court, Sagar by filing case No.106/99/IDR on 04.08.1999. These persons were Narhari Prasad Tiwari, Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava, Rudrapratap Tiwari and Tulsiram Joshi and in their case, learned Labour Court passed an order on 04.06.2004, setting aside the order passed by the Bharsadhak Adhikari of the concerned Mandi, cancelling the regularization orders of the petitioners.

3. In that case, facts were that, workmen before the Labour Court were appointed on various dates on collector rate. Thereafter, orders of their permanent classification/regularization were passed and, thereafter, their orders of permanent classification/regularization were cancelled, as a result of which, learned Labour Court vide impugned award showed indulgence and held that workmen will be entitled to the payment of salary in the concerned grade of pay on which they were initially appointed and they are entitled for regularization w.e.f. 29.07.1998.

4. Now, the issue herein is that whether petitioners who had not approached the Labour Court, are entitled to similar relief or not? 5. On 26.04.2024, this Court had posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents to answer as to whether the benefit extended by the Labour Court, Sagar, is in personam or in rem.

6. Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for one of the petitioners, places reliance on the judgment of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in case of University of Kashmir, Hazratbal, through its Registrar Vs.

Saif-Ud-Din Mir (LPA No.46/2024, decided on 26.03.2024), wherein in para 32 a reference is given to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

''29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to.''

7. Similarly, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, wherein in para 22.1, it is held 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