Equality Before Law: Why Must Every Employee Litigate?

Two officers serve in the same cadre under the same pay rules. One obtains a favourable judgment and receives revised pay. The other, identically placed, is told to secure a separate court order. Their treatment differs because one litigated and the other did not. Is this a fair approach to equality before law?

The controversy concerns the pay scales upgraded by the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 and the claim for notional fixation from 1 January 1996. In Union of India v. R. Siva Shankara Sastry, W.P. No.10490 of 2024, decided on 9 August 2024, the Telangana High Court upheld the Tribunal's relief. Its reasoning addressed a common anomaly affecting officers under the Department of Revenue, although the operative relief concerned the respondents.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union's special leave petition on 28 February 2025. This left the High Court judgment undisturbed. However, a non-speaking dismissal does not declare law under Article 141, as explained in Kunhayammed And Others Versus State Of Kerala And Another - 2000 (7) TMI 67 - Supreme Court (LB).

The governing principle appears in State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava & ors. - 2014 (10) TMI 947 - Supreme Court : identically situated employees should ordinarily receive similar relief. Exceptions concerning delay, acquiescence and judgments confined to their parties must nevertheless be examined. Equality requires verification of eligibility; it does not automatically remove procedural limitations.

A departmental instruction restricting implementation to applicants and stating that it should "not be quoted as precedent" cannot determine the judicial decision's precedential force. Nor does it answer another employee's independent claim based on the same reasoning. Further proceedings, including Sri Sugata Dasgupta, Sukalyan Banerjee, Anil Kumar, Subhabrata Samaddar, Debabrata Nath, Debabrata Chattopadhyay Versus Union of India, The Chairman, CBIC, North Block, New Delhi and The Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata - 2025 (11) TMI 2080 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, illustrate how an applicants-only approach perpetuates litigation.

Correct fixation and payment of arrears are separate questions. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Versus Tarsem Singh - 2008 (8) TMI 986 - Supreme Court, recognises relief for continuing wrongs concerning pay or pension, while ordinarily limiting consequential arrears. Applicable limitation provisions and individual circumstances remain relevant.

The better administrative course is to identify similarly situated employees, verify their entitlement and decide questions of delay and arrears through reasoned orders. Repeated litigation over the same anomaly burdens employees, departments and courts.

Equality should not depend on an employee's capacity to finance years of litigation. A common grievance deserves a common administrative examination. Otherwise, equal treatment becomes a reward for persistence in court.

----

Adv. G. Jayaprakash (Former Superintendent of Central Excise)