Article 14 parity in service benefits: absorbed deputationists were entitled to the same advance increment as similarly placed transferees.

Absorbed deputationists in the Corporation were held entitled to one advance increment under the pay-fixation proviso because they satisfied the prescribed continuous-service condition and were governed by the same service regulations as other employees. Denial of the same benefit to State Government deputationists, while extending it to similarly placed Central Government transferees, was found arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. The Court also rejected objections based on delay, laches, constructive res judicata, Order II Rule 2, and want of power to grant mandamus, holding that equal treatment could be directed once the statutory benefit had been granted to another comparable class.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deputationist employees absorbed in the Corporation were entitled to one advance increment under the proviso to Regulation 81 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. (ii) Whether denial of that benefit to State Government deputationists, while extending it to Central Government transferees, amounted to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the claim was barred by delay, laches, or procedural objections, and whether mandamus could issue in respect of the benefit.

Issue (i): Whether deputationist employees absorbed in the Corporation were entitled to one advance increment under the proviso to Regulation 81 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971.

Analysis: The benefit under the relevant pay-fixation provision applied to persons appointed to a time-scale post after continuous service of not less than two years in a Central or State Government department or undertaking immediately preceding such appointment. The absorbed deputationists were treated as direct recruits on absorption and were governed by the same service regulations as other employees. The Corporation had already extended the benefit to similarly placed Central Government transferees.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the advance increment.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of that benefit to State Government deputationists, while extending it to Central Government transferees, amounted to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court found that both sets of employees performed similar duties, possessed similar qualifications, and were ultimately governed by the same regulatory framework upon entry into the Corporation. Mere difference in source of recruitment or prior cadre could not justify unequal treatment when the relevant conditions for the benefit were common. A selective grant of the benefit to one class alone was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

Conclusion: The denial of parity was unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim was barred by delay, laches, or procedural objections, and whether mandamus could issue in respect of the benefit.

Analysis: The later writ petition was filed soon after the earlier Supreme Court decision became effective, and the objection based on delay was not accepted on the facts. The Court also held that once the statutory benefit had been extended to one class, a writ court could direct equal treatment to another similarly placed class. The objections based on constructive res judicata, Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and absence of power to issue mandamus were rejected in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The procedural objections failed, and mandamus was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Corporation was bound to extend the same pay-fixation benefit to the absorbed State Government deputationists, and the challenge to the High Court's direction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory service benefit is available to all employees governed by the same regulatory framework and similarly placed on relevant service conditions, selective denial to one class of absorbed employees is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

---