2014 AIR SCW 6519 ::2015 Lab IC 482 ::2015 (1) All LJ 322 ::2015 (1) ALJ 322 ::2015 (1) SCC 347 ::(2014) 12 Scale 234 ::AIR 2015 SC (Civil) 369 ::2015 (2) ADJ 14 NOC ::(2015) 1 ESC 89 ::(2014) 7 Mad LJ 885 ::(2015) 1 JLJR 159 ::(2015) 1 Pat LJR 297 ::(2014) 4 SCT 648 ::(2014) 6 ServLR 456

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Allahabad)

Hon'ble Judge(s): J. Chelameswar, A. K. Sikri , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.16, Art.226— Service matter - Extension of relief to non-parties - Relief granted to employee approaching Court - Extension to similarly placed employees not approaching Court - Permissible when judgment passed is judgment in rem - Similar relief cannot however, be extended to fence-sitters who approach Court only when their counter parts succeed in their efforts. Normal rule is 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. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the....