Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Inder Pal Yadav And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors Etc on 18 April, 1985
16. The Apex Court drew support from earlier binding
precedents, including Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of
India (1985 2 SCC 648), K.C. Sharma v. Union of
India (1997 6 SCC 721), and State of Karnataka v.
C. Lalitha (2006 2 SCC 747), which have consistently
held that the benefit of a judgment involving identical
facts and legal issues must be extended to all similarly
placed employees without the need for repeated
litigation. The Court reiterated that the administration is
under a constitutional obligation to apply settled law
equally and avoid discriminatory implementation of
judicial orders.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs C. Lalitha on 31 January, 2006
16. The Apex Court drew support from earlier binding
precedents, including Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of
India (1985 2 SCC 648), K.C. Sharma v. Union of
India (1997 6 SCC 721), and State of Karnataka v.
C. Lalitha (2006 2 SCC 747), which have consistently
held that the benefit of a judgment involving identical
facts and legal issues must be extended to all similarly
placed employees without the need for repeated
litigation. The Court reiterated that the administration is
under a constitutional obligation to apply settled law
equally and avoid discriminatory implementation of
judicial orders.
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
18. The principle that similarly placed applicants or
employees must be extended similar benefits is a
cornerstone of Indian service jurisprudence, stemming
from the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme
Court has consistently upheld this principle in numerous
judgments. While there have been many benches that
have ruled on this, a notable three-judge bench
judgment that emphasized this very point is State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava &
Ors (2014). In this case, a three-judge bench of the
Supreme Court held that the normal rule is that merely
because one person has approached the court and
obtained a favorable order, others similarly situated
2025.11.25
NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13
+05'30'
11 (OA No. 359/2024)
should not be treated differently or denied the same
benefits. In this judgement, the Court stated as under:
Suprita Chandel vs Union Of India on 9 October, 2023
Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Others,
Civil Appeal No. 1943 of 2022, decided on 10
December 2024, reaffirmed the settled principle that
once a competent court or tribunal has declared the law
or granted a benefit on a common issue, all other
similarly situated individuals are entitled to the same
relief without being compelled to initiate separate
litigation. The Apex Court deprecated the administrative
practice of extending the benefit of a judgment only to
the petitioners before the court while denying it to
others identically placed, observing that such conduct
2025.11.25
NEERU DOUGALL 11:10:13
+05'30'
8 (OA No. 359/2024)
offends the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14
of the Constitution.
1