Dismisses LPA of Kashmir University
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 28: A Division Bench of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal has held that all similarly situated persons should be treated alike and only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.
The DB was dealing with the LPA filed by the Kashmir University against the judgment of the Writ Court, which had issued directions to the Kashmir University to grant benefits of pay and grade attached to the post of Deputy Registrar/Deputy Controller to the petitioner (respondent before the DB) with effect from 14-10-2007 instead of 29-01-2009 and release all arrears thereof in favour of the respondent besides fixing and drawing his retiral benefits accordingly.
Being aggrieved, the University challenged the judgment by filing the LPA before the Division Bench, which observed, “we have gone through the entire record of the Writ Court which bears testimony to the fact that the petitioner/respondent upon being appointed as Deputy Registrar/Controller of Examination by the University on acting basis against an available post in terms of order dated 14th December, 2007, has sought his promotion against the post in question with grade and the matter was taken up with the officials of the Kashmir University Officers’ Association on 18.01.2009 and even recommendation has also been made on one such representation which has been filed by the respondent to the Controller of Examination on 14.01.2009– prior to the retirement of the respondent on 30.01.2009”.
“The record further reveals that the respondent did not sleep over the matter and filed yet another representation on 29.01.2009, which was followed by another representation dated 02.05.2018, whereby he has sought extension of the benefit as has been extended in favour of similarly situated co-employee, namely, Mohammad Yasin Malik, while making reference to his earlier representation before the Appellant-University. Thus, the ground urged by the Appellant-University that the respondent herein was a fence sitter, does not hold good and is contrary to the record”, the DB said.
“We are fortified by the judgment passed by the Apex Court that service jurisprudence evolved 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”, the DB said.
The DB further said, “we are again fortified by the view taken by the Supreme Court that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.
“It is not the case of the Appellant-University that it was only after judgment was passed in favour of a co-employee that the respondent/writ petitioner projected his case for grant of similar relief but on the other hand, the petitioner has filed a detailed representation well in time, when he was in active service but due to inaction on part of the Appellant-University to take a decision on the representation in spite of the recommendation, cannot be a stumbling block for according similar relief to the writ petitioner on the touchstone of equality clause”, the DB said.
“We are in agreement with the finding recorded by the Writ Court that the Appellant University has acted in the matter unfairly, unreasonably and arbitrarily, having subjected the respondent to hostile discrimination vis-à-vis his co-employee which per se is affront to the concept of equality, enshrined in the Constitution”, the DB said while upholding the judgment of Single Bench and dismissing the LPA of University.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
