Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not support the concept of 'negative equality'; a person cannot claim a benefit or relief solely on the ground that a similarly situated person was illegally or erroneously granted such a benefit.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to modify the order dated 7.6.2008 extending the benefit for regularization w.e.f. the date when the incumbent juniors has been regularized, with a further direction to the respondents to extend all consequential benefits to the petitioner as has been extended to the Respondent No.4 including seniority and arrears of salary alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., in the interest of justice.

ii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the costs throughout may also be granted."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the sanctioned and vacant post of Daily Wages Chowkidar after following the due process of selection on 18.01.1989 for 89 days. Thereafter, the appointment of petitioner was extended time to time. By order dated 02.09.1995, the services of the petitioner have been ordered to be terminated. Against the order of termination of petitioner, the petitioner filed original application bearing no.1219/1997 before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal Bench at Gwalior. By order dated 29.07.1998, the termination order was quashed and respondent shall re-instate the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner was re-instated in the department. By order dated 21.10.2002, respondent No.4 has been ordered to be regularized. Petitioner is senior to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 was appointed on 01.09.1992 in the respondent/department. Thereafter, petitioner has filed writ petition no.780/2003 that was decided on 29.11.2007 by which the direction was given to respondent to consider the case of petitioner for regularization. Thereafter, the respondent/department considered the case of petitioner for regularization and petitioner was regularized by order dated 07.06.2008 by which services of the petitioner were regularized from the date of issuing the order dated 07.06.2008.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 was regularized by order dated 21.10.2002 and petitioner is also entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 21.10.2002 on the ground of parity. By order dated 07.10.1995 (Annexure P/6), Excise Commissioner directed to terminate the services of respondent No.4 as his appointment has been irregular appointment. Despite the aforesaid, the benefit of regularization has been given to respondent No.4 w.e.f. 21.10.2002 but the benefit of regularization to petitioner has been given from 07.06.2008.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that earlier respondent No.4 was engaged as daily wager employee in Chambal Ayukt (Forest Division) development authority on 15.11.1988. He continued there up to 25.05.1992, hence his prior services rendered in the officer of Chambal Ayukat has been taken into consideration in regularizing the services of respondent No.4. Thus, from this fact it was found that initial date of appointment the respondent No.4 is 15.11.1988. The petitioner was appointed on 13.01.1989. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he is senior to respondent No.4 is wrong and denied. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s service was regularized by order dated 07.06.2008. The present petition has been filed after a lapse of seven years, i.e., on 19.03.2015, and no reason for the delay has been assigned to the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Earlier, respondent No. 4 was engaged as a daily-wage employee in the office of Chambal Ayukt (Forest Division Development Authority) on 15.11.1988 and continued up to 25.05.1992. His prior service was taken into consideration while regularizing his services; accordingly, his initial date of appointment is 15.11.1988, whereas the petition