Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.P. Gupta vs Union Of India on 11 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56628
1 WP-26151-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 11th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26151 of 2024
R.P. GUPTA AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kaushalendra Nath Pethia and Shri Abhinesh Soni - Advocates
for the petitioners.
Shri Manhar Dixit - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present
petition, challenging the order dated 24.07.2024 (Annexure P/4) passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby Original Application No.
200/001082/2019 was dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches,
treating the petitioners as fence-sitters.
2. The petitioners had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
seeking the following relief:-
"8.1. The present application be allowed and
applicants be granted pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f.
1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits as per the
Fourth Pay Commission report, which has been allowed
to similarly situated employees and got the seal of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56628
2 WP-26151-2024
approval from Apex Court and the respondents be
further directed to award interest @12% p.a. on the said
amount in the interest of justice. Since the applicant
No.4 has retired from the services, therefore, his
pension and pensionary benefits be accordingly revised
and arrears be paid with same rate of interest.
8.2 Further direct the respondents to pay the cost
of Rs.1,00,000/- to each employee and same may
be directed to be recovered from the pockets of
erring officers as the responsible officers have made
the mockery of judicial system and it is apparent that
they .have given step motherly treatment to the
similarly situated employee and reason is obvious and
can be very well inferred but under judicial propriety
the same cannot be stated here but this Hon'ble can
draw inference as country is suffering from the same
where employees are discriminated as they are unable to
please the higher officers in many kinds."
3. The dismissal of O.A. by the ld. Tribunal was based solely on the
ground that similarly placed employees had earlier approached the Tribunal
by way of O.A. No. 1443/1995 (Manoj Kumar Srivastava & 15 others vs.
Union of India and others), which was allowed vide order dated 26.10.1999.
The said order was assailed by the Railways up to the Hon'ble Apex Court
by way of SLP No. 3969/2000, but remained unsuccessful. Thereafter, the
benefits of a pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.1.1986,
with all consequential benefits as per the Fourth Pay Commission report,
were extended to those petitioners. The petitioners' entitlement has not been
disputed on merits by the respondents . The respondents nowhere contended
that petitioners are not entitled to the same benefits as extended to Manoj
Kumar Srivastava & 15 others.
4. The ld. Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.2024 dismissed the petition
on the ground that the petitioners did not approach at the relevant time to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56628
3 WP-26151-2024
claim similar benefits. Therefore, they have no vested right to claim the
same, being fence-sitters. Hence, the present petition has been filed before
this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India/Railways submits
that the petitioners, who were sleeping over their rights, cannot be permitted
to take advantage of the judgement passed in favour of those employees who
were vigilant about their rights. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed
their Original Application on the ground of delay and laches.
7. In service matters, when a particular benefit such as pay-scale, up-
gradation, revision, or increment is granted to one set of employees, officers,
or a cadre by the Government, it is liable to be extended to all similarly
placed employees without any discrimination. The same principle applies in
the case of judgments passed by the Tribunal, High Court, or the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The Government department or organization cannot expect
each and every similarly placed employees /officer to approach the Court
/Tribunal and obtain a similar order. Such an approach unnecessarily
increases the burden of cases before the Tribunal and the High Court and
also causes financial burden to low-paid employees.
8. If a benefit is admittedly available to all identically placed
employees, then when any service benefit is granted to one set of employees,
the said benefits should be given to all similarly placed employees. If every
employee is expected to approach the court, then it will cause a heavy
financial burden on them as well as upon the court. Even otherwise, the grant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56628
4 WP-26151-2024
of benefit of pay is a recurring cause of action, as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in a catena of judgements. Therefore, the question of delay should not
be made a ground to deny such genuine undisputed claims.
9. In view of the above, the order dated 24.07.2024 is hereby set aside.
Let all the benefits of the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.1.1986,
with all consequential benefits as per the Fourth Pay Commission report, be
extended to the petitioners.
10. With the above, the writ petition is disposed of.
11. No order to cost.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Prar
