Date of the Judgment: April 05, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 289
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can an employee be denied benefits that were previously granted to a similarly situated employee? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the regularization of a Physical Education Teacher (PET). The court examined whether an employee should receive the same regularization benefits as a colleague who had previously won a similar case. This judgment emphasizes the principle of equal treatment under the law.
Case Background
The case revolves around Milan Rana, the appellant, who sought regularization as a Physical Education Teacher (PET) and associated benefits, similar to those granted to one Harbhajan Kaur. Harbhajan Kaur had previously filed a writ petition and won a case where she was granted regularization from 15th July 2001 with all the monetary benefits, including arrears of wages. Milan Rana, who was also in a similar situation, filed a writ petition seeking the same benefits. However, her initial petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Although the Division Bench of the High Court eventually granted her regularization, the benefits were restricted to the date of filing of her second writ petition. Milan Rana appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking parity with Harbhajan Kaur’s case, arguing that she should receive the benefits from the beginning of her service, not just from the date of her second petition.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15th July 2001 | Harbhajan Kaur’s regularization was effective from this date. |
| 2001 | Harbhajan Kaur filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.1053 of 2001. |
| 05th April 2010 | High Court ordered regularization of Harbhajan Kaur as PET with effect from 15th July 2001. |
| 24th March 2015 | Single Judge of the High Court dismissed Milan Rana’s Writ Petition (Civil) No.1909 of 2002. |
| 2002 | Milan Rana filed her initial Writ Petition (Civil) No.1909 of 2002. |
| 2002 | Milan Rana filed her second writ petition. |
| 13th May 2019 | High Court Division Bench’s order under challenge in LPA No.329 of 2019, granting regularization to Milan Rana but with benefits restricted from the date of filing of the second writ petition. |
| 05th April 2022 | Supreme Court passed the final judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, Milan Rana’s writ petition seeking regularization was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Subsequently, in an appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed her to withdraw the original writ petition. The High Court then granted her the relief of regularization with all consequential benefits, but these benefits were restricted from the date of filing of her second writ petition. This order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
There is no specific legal framework discussed in the judgment. The judgment primarily focuses on the principle of parity and equal treatment under the law, emphasizing that similarly situated individuals should receive similar benefits.
Arguments
The main argument of the appellant, Milan Rana, was that she should be granted the same benefits as Harbhajan Kaur, including regularization and all consequential benefits, from the beginning of her service, not just from the date of her second writ petition. The appellant contended that she was similarly situated as Harbhajan Kaur and thus, should be treated equally. The respondents did not dispute the appellant’s entitlement to regularization and consequential benefits.
| Appellant’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ Milan Rana should receive the same benefits as Harbhajan Kaur. | ✓ The respondents did not dispute Milan Rana’s entitlement to regularization. |
| ✓ Benefits should be granted from the beginning of her service, not just from the date of her second writ petition. | ✓ The respondents did not dispute Milan Rana’s entitlement to consequential benefits. |
| ✓ She is similarly situated as Harbhajan Kaur and thus, should be treated equally. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the appellant, Milan Rana, can claim parity with the case of Harbhajan Kaur and receive regularization benefits from the beginning of her service, similar to what was granted to Harbhajan Kaur.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether Milan Rana can claim parity with Harbhajan Kaur and receive regularization benefits from the beginning of her service? | The Supreme Court held that Milan Rana is entitled to the same benefits as Harbhajan Kaur. The Court found no reason to limit the operation of such benefits from the day of filing of the second writ petition and granted benefits from the beginning of the academic session of 2002 when her initial writ petition was filed. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court primarily relied on the principle of parity and equal treatment under the law. The Court considered the order passed by the High Court in the case of Harbhajan Kaur, which had attained finality.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Order in Harbhajan Kaur’s case | The court used the order in Harbhajan Kaur’s case as a benchmark for granting similar relief to Milan Rana, emphasizing the principle of equal treatment. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Milan Rana should receive the same benefits as Harbhajan Kaur. | The Court accepted this submission and granted Milan Rana the same benefits as Harbhajan Kaur. |
| Benefits should be granted from the beginning of her service, not just from the date of her second writ petition. | The Court agreed with this submission and ordered that the benefits be granted from the beginning of the academic session of 2002 when her initial writ petition was filed. |
| The respondents did not dispute Milan Rana’s entitlement to regularization and consequential benefits. | The Court took note of the fact that the respondents did not dispute Milan Rana’s entitlement to regularization and consequential benefits. |
The Court’s view on the authorities:
- The order in the case of Harbhajan Kaur was followed by the court, and the court held that the appellant was entitled to the same benefits as were granted to Harbhajan Kaur.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of parity and the need to ensure equal treatment under the law. The court emphasized that since Milan Rana was similarly situated as Harbhajan Kaur, she should receive the same benefits. The court also noted that the respondents did not dispute her entitlement to regularization and consequential benefits. The court’s decision was also influenced by the fact that Harbhajan Kaur’s case had attained finality, and thus, the same benefits should be extended to Milan Rana.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Parity and Equal Treatment | 60% |
| Undisputed Entitlement | 25% |
| Finality of Harbhajan Kaur’s Case | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was based on the principle of equal treatment and the fact that the respondents did not dispute Milan Rana’s entitlement to regularization and consequential benefits. The court stated, “Having considered the facts and circumstances on record and the rival submissions, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the benefits as were granted to said Harbhajan Kaur and there was no occasion to limit the operation of such benefits with effect from the day of filing of the second writ petition.” The Court further observed, “The facts on record indicate that Harbhajan Kaur was granted benefit from the beginning of the Academic Session when she had filed the writ petition. Applying the same analogy, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of regularization and all other consequential benefits from the beginning of Academic Session of 2002 when her initial writ petition was filed.” The Court concluded, “Ordered accordingly.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Employees who are similarly situated should receive similar benefits.
- ✓ The principle of parity is crucial in ensuring equal treatment under the law.
- ✓ When a benefit has been granted to one employee, similarly situated employees should not be denied the same benefit.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the order be implemented within eight weeks from the date of the judgment, and the arrears be paid to the appellant within two weeks thereafter.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that employees who are similarly situated should receive similar benefits, and the principle of parity should be applied to ensure equal treatment under the law. This case reinforces the principle that if a benefit has been granted to one employee, similarly situated employees should not be denied the same benefit. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the judgment reinforces the existing principle of equal treatment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Milan Rana vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi emphasizes the importance of equal treatment under the law. The court held that Milan Rana was entitled to the same regularization benefits as Harbhajan Kaur, including the benefits from the beginning of the academic session of 2002 when her initial writ petition was filed. This decision ensures that similarly situated employees receive equal benefits, reinforcing the principle of parity.