Supreme Court Grants Parity in Regularization Benefits to Teacher

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the issue of regularization benefits for a teacher whose case was similar to an earlier settled matter. The appellant, Milan Rana, had sought parity with another teacher, Harbhajan Kaur, whose employment had been regularized with retrospective benefits following a court order.

The case revolved around the entitlement of Milan Rana to the same benefits as granted to Harbhajan Kaur, who had been given full employment status with arrears from July 15, 2001. The High Court had earlier ruled that Milan Rana should receive benefits only from the date of filing the second writ petition. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this limitation.

Background of the Case

Milan Rana had filed a petition in 2002 seeking regularization as a Physical Education Teacher (PET) in Central Academy Senior Secondary School, New Delhi. The claim was based on the precedent set in the case of Harbhajan Kaur, who had successfully secured her employment regularization through a court order in 2010.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-crpf-officer-for-suppressing-criminal-case-details/

Key Legal Issue

The main contention in the case was whether Milan Rana could claim identical benefits as Harbhajan Kaur, particularly regarding the effective date of regularization and arrears.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court noted:

• Harbhajan Kaur was granted regularization and financial benefits dating back to the beginning of the academic session when she had filed her writ petition.
• Milan Rana’s case was substantially similar, and denying her equivalent benefits was unjustified.
• The restriction imposed by the High Court on the effective date of regularization was unwarranted.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Milan Rana, directing that:

• She should be granted regularization benefits from the beginning of the 2002 academic session.
• All consequential benefits, including arrears, must be paid within eight weeks.
• The order must be implemented promptly, with arrears disbursed within two additional weeks.

With this decision, the Court reaffirmed the principle of parity in employment benefits and discouraged arbitrary distinctions between similarly placed individuals.

Petitioner Name: Milan Rana.
Respondent Name: Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 05-04-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: milan-rana-vs-govt.-of-nct-of-delh-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-05-04-2022.pdf