Jivanlal v. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary & Ors.
Background
The appellants were long-serving government employees (working as Sweepers) who sought regularization of their service from the date each of them completed 10 years of service. They relied on the fact that the government had granted similar regularization, on the same basis, to other similarly-situated employees. The respondent-State argued that those earlier regularizations were themselves illegal because the State had, in principle, decided to discontinue appointments to the post of Sweeper from 1997 onward.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that even after the State's 1997 policy decision, it had continued granting regularization to many similarly-situated employees from the date they completed 10 years of service. The Court found no justification for singling out these appellants for different, discriminatory treatment, holding that a "pick and choose" policy of this kind would invite corruption. The appeals (a batch of linked Civil Appeals, all involving the same issue) were allowed, directing the authorities to regularize the appellants' service with effect from the date each completed 10 years, implement this within two months, and pay any consequential monetary benefits within a further month, with 12% interest and personal liability for the responsible officer in case of delay.
Lesson Learnt
When a government department has already granted a benefit (like regularization) to similarly-situated employees, it cannot arbitrarily deny the same benefit to others in an identical position: selective, inconsistent application of a policy is treated by courts as unlawful discrimination.