Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the denial of higher grade pay and pension benefits to deceased Mahipatbhai Joshi, who had served for 33 years with respondent No. 4 from 14 August 1974 until his death in March 2009. His sons, the petitioners, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to calculate and pay the pension amount including higher grade pay for completing 9, 18, and 27 years of service. The petitioners contended that all other similarly situated employees had received the higher grade pay benefit, but it was arbitrarily denied to their father. During arguments on 5 December 2025, they referred to an observation made by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1127 of 2003, which stated that the benefit of 9 and 18 years higher grade pay had been released to employees. In light of this, the Court directed the respondents to secure instructions and file an additional affidavit. However, despite multiple opportunities, no affidavit was filed. The Court noted the specific averment that denial was discriminatory and relied on the observation in the earlier case. It held that respondents 2, 3, and 4 must examine whether similarly situated employees had indeed received the benefit and, if so, extend it to Mahipatbhai Joshi. They were directed to record a categorical finding and pass appropriate orders with notice to the petitioners within six weeks. Additionally, the Court observed that if any benefit relating to pension was granted to similarly situated employees in pending Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 162, 164, and 165 of 2021, the same would automatically be extended to the petitioners as legal heirs. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions, ensuring parity and quick resolution.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Higher Grade Pay - Parity - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioners contended that the deceased employee was denied higher grade pay benefits for 9, 18, and 27 years of service while all other similarly situated employees received them, as observed in Special Civil Application No. 1127 of 2003. The Court relied on that observation and directed respondents to examine and extend the benefits if similarly situated employees had indeed been granted such benefits, with a categorical finding to be recorded within six weeks. Held that the respondents are directed to extend higher grade pay benefits for 9, 18, and 27 years to the deceased employee if other similarly situated employees have received it, as per the prior court observation (Paras 3, 6, 7, 8, 9). B) Pension - Extension of Benefits - Binding Nature of Court Orders - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - In pending Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 162, 164, and 165 of 2021 dealing with pension of similarly situated employees, if the Court grants any benefit, the same shall be extended to the petitioners who are legal heirs of the deceased employee. Held that any pension benefits granted to similarly situated employees in those proceedings shall automatically be extended to the present petitioners (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the deceased employee is entitled to higher grade pay benefits for 9, 18, and 27 years of service on parity with other similarly situated employees, and whether the respondents should be directed to calculate and pay pension including such benefits.
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondents 2, 3, and 4 to examine and extend higher grade pay benefits for 9, 18, and 27 years of service to deceased Mahipatbhai Joshi if similarly situated employees have been extended such benefit, as observed in Special Civil Application No. 1127 of 2003. They must record a categorical finding and pass orders with notice to petitioners within six weeks. Any pension benefits granted to similarly situated employees in pending Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 162, 164, and 165 of 2021 shall automatically extend to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Parity in service benefits
- benefits extended to all similarly situated employees cannot be arbitrarily denied to one
- court observation in earlier case constitutes a binding direction
- employers must verify and extend benefits
- pensionary benefits follow the same parity principle
