another person in a similar situation. It emphasizes
situation. Essentially, its about fairness and applying Rules
or behaviors consistently. In essence, it is about applying
having double standards. If one person is allowed to do
should also be allowed to do it. This concept is on the
2. The Union of India is in this writ petition under
Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench ('Tribunal' for short).
3. Though the matter is listed for 'preliminary
petitioners, the same is taken up for 'final disposal'.
4. The parties will be referred to as per their
ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference.
5. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 / applicants filed
In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned
above, the applicants most respectfully pray that this
Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
(i) Quash the communication dated 24.03.2023
(Annexure-A7) and 18.05.2023 (Annexure-A9) as
unconstitutional and illogical;
(ii) Direct the respondents to consider the grievances
of the applicants by considering the date of
temporary status of the applicants as their date of
appointment as has been done in the case of the
Respondents no.3 to 8 on 23.09.2022 (Annexure-
A3) in compliance to the orders of this Hon'ble
Tribunal in OA no.170/00504 - 00511/2018 dated
18.07.2019 and of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in W.P.no.21961 of 2021 dated
10.08.2022;
(iii) Direct the respondents to revise the seniority of
the applicants in Technician - I issued on
01.02.2023 (Annexure-A5) as a consequence of
the (ii) above and
(iv) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and
proper in the interest of justice equity."
6. The brief outline of the facts leading to filing of
this present petition are as under:
The applicants - respondent Nos.1 to 6 who are
presently working as Technician Grade-I in Carriage &
Wagon Depot of South Western Railway in Mysuru
Division, claimed that they were initially appointed as
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
substitutes on 04.12.2006 and granted temporary status
between 03.04.2007 and 07.04.2007. The private
respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the Tribunal - respondent
Nos.7 to 12 in the present petition approached the
Tribunal in O.A.Nos.504-511/2018, seeking for
consideration of the 'date of grating of temporary status'
as the 'date of appointment' with all consequential
benefits, which came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide
order dated 18.07.2019, at Annexure-A1 to the writ
petition.
7. The Union challenged the order dated
18.07.2019 passed in O.A.Nos.504-511/2018, in Writ
Petition No.21961/2021 before this Court. A Coordinate
Bench of this Court, dismissed the petition by an order
dated 10.08.2022, directing the petitioners-Union to
comply the order of the Tribunal within three months.
Pursuant to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court, the Union by issuing a memorandum dated
23.09.2022, implemented the order passed by the
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
Tribunal in O.A. Nos.504-511/2018, in respect of
respondent Nos.7 to 12 herein.
8. The applicants - respondents Nos.1 to 6 herein
filed an application before the Tribunal, claiming that they
are also similarly situated persons, as that of respondent
Nos.7 to 12 and to extend the benefit granted to the said
respondents. The petitioners-Union accepted the notice
and opposed the application on the ground that the order
passed by the Tribunal in respect of respondent Nos.7 to
12 herein and the confirmation of the same by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court are judgments in
personam, as such respondent Nos.1 to 6 are not entitled
for any relief as that of Respondent Nos.7 to 12 and
accordingly sought to dismiss the application.
9. The Tribunal upon hearing both the parties,
allowed the application directing the petitioners-Union to
issue orders granting all the benefits in terms of the order
passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.504-511/2018 dated
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
18.07.2019, within a period of three months. The Tribunal
has assigned its reasons at paragraph Nos.10 and 11, the
same are as follows:
"10. The stance of the respondents in the present
case that consequent to the order passed by the this
Tribunal confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka, seniority of the private respondents has
been revised considering their date of temporary
status as date of appointment/absorption and the
same cannot be made applicable to the applicant
herein is perverse. Denial of the said benefits to the
applicants herein, more particularly when the learned
Counsel for the respondents is unable to distinguish
the case of the applicants in OA No.504-511/2018
and the instant applicants is unjustifiable. Even the
ground of delay and laches, is not applicable as held
by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.21961/2021.
11. In the circumstances, we find merit in the OA,
accordingly OA succeeds. The respondents are
directed to issue the consequential orders for the
benefits for which the applicants are eligible in terms
of the order passed in OA No.504-511/2018 dated
18.07.2019, in an expedite manner, in any event
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
10. It is this order, which is called in question in the
present writ petition.
11. Heard Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned counsel
for the petitioners and perused the entire writ papers.
12. The main limb of contention advanced by
Smt.Hegde is that the order of the Tribunal and the
confirmation of the same by the Coordinate bench of this
Court in respect of respondent Nos.7 to 12 are judgments
in personam and as such, the benefits under the said
order cannot be extended to respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein.
13. It is trite law that once an order is passed by a
Court granting benefits in terms of law, the similarly
placed persons are to be treated similarly on the 'principle
of similarly situated persons'. This principle is rooted in the
idea of fairness and equal application of law.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a pivotal judgment in
the case of LT.COL. SUPRITA CHANDEL vs. UNION OF
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
INDIA,1 held that the individual who are similarly situated
to those who have already been granted relief by the
Court need not be required to initiate separate
proceedings for the same benefits. The Hon'ble Apex Court
at paragraph Nos.14, 18 and 19 has held as follows:
"14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a
citizen aggrieved by an action of the government
department has approached the court and obtained a
declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly
situated ought to be extended the benefit without
the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Law
Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi
and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714].
xxx
18. The respondent authorities on their own should
have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT,
Principal Bench in OA No.111 of 2013 and batch to
the appellant. To illustrate, take the case of the
valiant Indian soldiers bravely guarding the frontiers
at Siachen or in other difficult terrain. Thoughts on
conditions of service and job perquisites will be last
in their mind. Will it be fair to tell them that they will
not be given relief even if they are similarly situated,
Civil Appeal No.1943/2022, dated 09.12.2024
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed
in the case of certain applicants alone who moved
the court? We think that would be a very unfair
scenario. Accepting the stand of the respondents in
this case would result in this Court putting its
imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the
authorities.
19. The stand of the Department relying on the
judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra
and Another vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni
and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 130 to contend that
mere reduction in chance of consideration did not
result in deprivation of any right does not appeal to
us. The appellant's case is founded on the principle
of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought
to be sauce for the gander. If the applicants in
O.A.No.111 of 2013 whom we find are identically
situated to the appellant were found to be eligible to
be given a third chance for promotion, because they
acquired eligibility before the amendment to AI
No.37 of 1978 on 20.03.2013, we find no reason why
the appellant should not be treated alike."
15. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of
NAGAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA2, held that it is
W.A. No.1856 of 1986, dated 01.08.1986
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
not necessary that every person to approach this Court for
a relief similar to the one already granted by the court in
the earlier decisions. If a decision has been rendered by
the Court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow
and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases
coming before them. That should be the guiding principle
to be borne in mind in the administration. It is not proper
to drive every person to seek relief in the Court. It is
indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of
the concluded decision of the Court to all other similar
cases. The reasons for the decision are stated in
paragraph Nos. 1 to 3, which reads as follows:
"This appeal is directed against the order dated April
2, 1986 of the learned Single Judge dismissing
W.P.No.2518 of 1986. The petitioners therein are
some persons interested either in purchasing or
disposing of their landed properties. They apprehend
that the Circular issued by the second respondent,
which has been filed as Annexure'B' to the Writ
Petition, requiring the registering authority to value
the property at the rates mentioned therein would
affect their interest, if any registration is to be made.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
The case of the appellants is that similar Circular has
been held to be invalid by several decisions of this
Court and in particular the decisions of this Court in
M.G.Kulkarni vs. State of Karnataka and
Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka.
2. We have perused the said decisions and also
the averments made in the Writ Petition. In our
opinion, it is not necessary for every person to
approach this Court for a relief similar to the one
already granted by this court in the aforesaid
decisions. If a decision has been rendered by this
Court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow
and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases
coming before them. That should be the guiding
principle to be borne in mind in the administration.
It is not proper to drive every person to seek relief in
this Court. It is indeed the duty of the authorities to
extend the benefits of the concluded decision of this
Court to all other similar cases.
3. In our view, it is wholly unnecessary for the
appellant to approach this Court by way of Writ
Petitions. In view of the law laid down by this Court
in the aforesaid decisions, which binds all the
registering authorities in the State in the similar
circumstances, it is not necessary to entertain the
Writ Petition of the appellant.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
With the above observations, the appeal stands
disposed of."
16. The Tribunal after considering the case of the
applicants i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 6 that they are
'similarly placed persons' to that of respondent Nos.7 to
12, which is not disputed by the petitioners herein,
allowed the application and granted the relief in terms of
the order passed by the Tribunal in Application Nos.504-
511/2018, dated 18.07.2019.
17. We are alive to the situation that if the persons
who had been granted the benefit forms a different class
than that of the persons who are claiming the benefits on
par with them. On the query as to whether the applicants
before the Tribunal forms a different class than the
respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the Tribunal, Smt.Hegde is
unable to differentiate between the applicants and
respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the Tribunal, this left us no
other option than to hold that the stand of the Union
amounts to discrimination as well as unfair ; in similarly
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
situated persons, which is against the spirit of 'law of
equality' and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, this Court, as well as other High Courts across
the country.
18. In view of the judgments stated supra, we find
no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal, which
calls for any interference at the hands of this Court. For
the reasons stated supra, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition filed challenging the order dated
10.06.2024, in Original Application
No.170/00274/2023, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, sans
merits and accordingly dismissed.
ii) The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru
Bench, vide order dated 10.06.2024, in Original
Application No.170/00274/2023, granted time of
three months for compliance, from the date of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19442-DB
HC-KAR
receipt of the certified copy of the order for
compliance. We are exactly in June'2025, i.e.,
exactly one year from the date of passing of the
order. In view of the same, the petitioners - Union is
directed to comply with the order passed by the
Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, within an outer
limit of three months without waiting for a copy of
the order as they are the parties, in challenge before
this Court.
iii) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
JJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT: BRS
