ORDER : (T.M. NADAF, J.) ‘What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’, means, if something is acceptable or permissible for one person, it should also be acceptable or permissible for another person in a similar situation. It emphasizes treating individuals with the same standards in an identical situation. Essentially, its about fairness and applying Rules or behaviors consistently. In essence, it is about applying the same Rules, or standards to everyone, rather than having double standards. If one person is allowed to do something, then another person in a similar situation should also be allowed to do it. This concept is on the principle of “similarly situated persons” and “like should be treated alike”. 2. The Union of India is in this writ petition under Article-226 of Constitution of India , calling in question the order dated 10.06.2024, in Original Application No.170/00274/2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (‘Tribunal’ for short). 3. Though the matter is listed for ‘preliminary hearing’, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is taken up for ‘final disposal’. 4. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference. 5. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 / applicants filed application before the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs: “8. Relief Sought for: In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the applicants most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to: (i) Quash the communication dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure-A7) and 18.05.2023 (Annexure-A9) as unconstitutional and illogical; (ii) Direct the respondents to consider the grievances of the applicants by considering the date of temporary status of the applicants as their date of appointment as has been done in the case of the Respondents no.3 to 8 on 23.09.2022 (Annexure- A3) in compliance to the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA no.170/00504 – 00511/2018 dated 18.07.2019 and of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.no.21961 of 2021 dated 10.08.2022; (iii) Direct the respondents to revise the seniority of the applicants in Technician – I issued on 01.02.2023 (Annexure-A5) as a consequence of the (ii) above and (iv) Grant any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice equity.” 6. The brief outline of the facts leading to filing of this present petition are as under: The applicants – respondent Nos.1 to 6 who are presently working as Technician Grade-I in Carriage & Wagon Depot of South Western Railway in Mysuru Division, claimed that they were initially appointed as substitutes on 04.12.2006 and granted temporary status between 03.04.2007 and 07.04.2007. The private respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the Tribunal – respondent Nos.7 to 12 in the present petition approached the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.504-511/2018, seeking for consideration of the ‘date of grating of temporary status’ as the ‘date of appointment’ with all consequential benefits, which came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 18.07.2019, at Annexure-A1 to the writ petition. 7. The Union challenged the order dated 18.07.2019 passed in O.A.Nos.504-511/2018, in Writ Petition No.21961/2021 before this Court. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, dismissed the petition by an order dated 10.08.2022, directing the petitioners–Union to comply the order of the Tribunal within three months. Pursuant to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Union by issuing a memorandum dated 23.09.2022, implemented the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.504-511/2018, in respect of respondent Nos.7 to 12 herein. 8. The applicants – respondents Nos.1 to 6 herein filed an application before the Tribunal, claiming that they are also similarly situated persons, as that of respondent Nos.7 to 12 and to extend the benefit granted to the said respondents. The petitioners–Union accepted the notice and opposed the application on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of respondent Nos.7 to 12 herein and the confirmation of the same by the Coordinate Bench of this Court are judgments in personam, as such respondent Nos.1 to 6 are not entitled for any relief as that of Respondent Nos.7 to 12 and accordingly sought to dismiss the application. 9. The Tribunal upon hearing both the parties, allowed the application directing the petitioners–Union to issue orders granting all the benefits in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.504-511/2018 dated 18.07.2019, within a period of three months. The Tribunal has assigned its reasons at paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, the same are as follows: “10. 9. The Tribunal upon hearing both the parties, allowed the application directing the petitioners–Union to issue orders granting all the benefits in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.504-511/2018 dated 18.07.2019, within a period of three months. The Tribunal has assigned its reasons at paragraph Nos. 10 and 11, the same are as follows: “10. The stance of the respondents in the present case that consequent to the order passed by the this Tribunal confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, seniority of the private respondents has been revised considering their date of temporary status as date of appointment/absorption and the same cannot be made applicable to the applicant herein is perverse. Denial of the said benefits to the applicants herein, more particularly when the learned Counsel for the respondents is unable to distinguish the case of the applicants in OA No.504-511/2018 and the instant applicants is unjustifiable. Even the ground of delay and laches, is not applicable as held by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.21961/2021. 11. In the circumstances, we find merit in the OA, accordingly OA succeeds. The respondents are directed to issue the consequential orders for the benefits for which the applicants are eligible in terms of the order passed in OA No.504-511/2018 dated 18.07.2019, in an expedite manner, in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.” 10. It is this order, which is called in question in the present writ petition. 11. Heard Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire writ papers. 12. The main limb of contention advanced by Smt.Hegde is that the order of the Tribunal and the confirmation of the same by the Coordinate bench of this Court in respect of respondent Nos.7 to 12 are judgments in personam and as such, the benefits under the said order cannot be extended to respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein. 13. It is trite law that once an order is passed by a Court granting benefits in terms of law, the similarly placed persons are to be treated similarly on the ‘principle of similarly situated persons’. This principle is rooted in the idea of fairness and equal application of law. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a pivotal judgment in the case of LT.COL. This principle is rooted in the idea of fairness and equal application of law. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a pivotal judgment in the case of LT.COL. SUPRITA CHANDEL vs. UNION OF INDIA , [Civil Appeal No.1943/2022, dated 09.12.2024] held that the individual who are similarly situated to those who have already been granted relief by the Court need not be required to initiate separate proceedings for the same benefits. The Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.14, 18 and 19 has held as follows: “14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Law Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714 ]. xxx 18. The respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench in OA No.111 of 2013 and batch to the appellant. To illustrate, take the case of the valiant Indian soldiers bravely guarding the frontiers at Siachen or in other difficult terrain. Thoughts on conditions of service and job perquisites will be last in their mind. Will it be fair to tell them that they will not be given relief even if they are similarly situated, since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed in the case of certain applicants alone who moved the court? We think that would be a very unfair scenario. Accepting the stand of the respondents in this case would result in this Court putting its imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the authorities. 19. The stand of the Department relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others , (1981) 4 SCC 130 to contend that mere reduction in chance of consideration did not result in deprivation of any right does not appeal to us. The appellant’s case is founded on the principle of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. The appellant’s case is founded on the principle of discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. If the applicants in O.A.No.111 of 2013 whom we find are identically situated to the appellant were found to be eligible to be given a third chance for promotion, because they acquired eligibility before the amendment to AI No.37 of 1978 on 20.03.2013, we find no reason why the appellant should not be treated alike.” 15. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of NAGAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA , [W.A. No.1856 of 1986, dated 01.08.1986] , held that it is not necessary that every person to approach this Court for a relief similar to the one already granted by the court in the earlier decisions. If a decision has been rendered by the Court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases coming before them. That should be the guiding principle to be borne in mind in the administration. It is not proper to drive every person to seek relief in the Court. It is indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of the concluded decision of the Court to all other similar cases. The reasons for the decision are stated in paragraph Nos. 1 to 3, which reads as follows: “This appeal is directed against the order dated April 2, 1986 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.2518 of 1986. The petitioners therein are some persons interested either in purchasing or disposing of their landed properties. They apprehend that the Circular issued by the second respondent, which has been filed as Annexure’B’ to the Writ Petition, requiring the registering authority to value the property at the rates mentioned therein would affect their interest, if any registration is to be made. The case of the appellants is that similar Circular has been held to be invalid by several decisions of this Court and in particular the decisions of this Court in M.G.Kulkarni vs. State of Karnataka and Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka. 2. We have perused the said decisions and also the averments made in the Writ Petition. In our opinion, it is not necessary for every person to approach this Court for a relief similar to the one already granted by this court in the aforesaid decisions. 2. We have perused the said decisions and also the averments made in the Writ Petition. In our opinion, it is not necessary for every person to approach this Court for a relief similar to the one already granted by this court in the aforesaid decisions. If a decision has been rendered by this Court, it would be proper for the authorities to follow and extend the benefit of that decision in like cases coming before them. That should be the guiding principle to be borne in mind in the administration. It is not proper to drive every person to seek relief in this Court. It is indeed the duty of the authorities to extend the benefits of the concluded decision of this Court to all other similar cases. 3. In our view, it is wholly unnecessary for the appellant to approach this Court by way of Writ Petitions. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, which binds all the registering authorities in the State in the similar circumstances, it is not necessary to entertain the Writ Petition of the appellant. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.” 16. The Tribunal after considering the case of the applicants i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 6 that they are ‘similarly placed persons’ to that of respondent Nos.7 to 12, which is not disputed by the petitioners herein, allowed the application and granted the relief in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in Application Nos.504- 511/2018, dated 18.07.2019. 17. We are alive to the situation that if the persons who had been granted the benefit forms a different class than that of the persons who are claiming the benefits on par with them. On the query as to whether the applicants before the Tribunal forms a different class than the respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the Tribunal, Smt.Hegde is unable to differentiate between the applicants and respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the Tribunal, this left us no other option than to hold that the stand of the Union amounts to discrimination as well as unfair ; in similarly situated persons, which is against the spirit of ‘law of equality’ and the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court, as well as other High Courts across the country. 18. 18. In view of the judgments stated supra, we find no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal, which calls for any interference at the hands of this Court. For the reasons stated supra, we pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition filed challenging the order dated 10.06.2024, in Original Application No.170/00274/2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, sans merits and accordingly dismissed. ii) The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, vide order dated 10.06.2024, in Original Application No.170/00274/2023, granted time of three months for compliance, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order for compliance. We are exactly in June’2025, i.e., exactly one year from the date of passing of the order. In view of the same, the petitioners – Union is directed to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of three months without waiting for a copy of the order as they are the parties, in challenge before this Court. iii) No order as to cost.