Experience Can Justify Pay Difference, 'Equal Pay' Rule Cannot Be Applied Mechanically: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied mechanically merely because two categories of employees perform similar duties. It said differences in experience between directly recruited and promoted employees can provide a valid basis for different pay scales.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made the observation while dismissing appeals filed by directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers, Junior (HSST, Jr.) working in government-aided schools in Kerala. The teachers had sought the same pay scale as HSST, Jr. teachers appointed through transfer or promotion, Live Law reports.

Visit casino-promo.biz for more information.

Same Work Alone Not Enough

The appellants were appointed through direct recruitment under a 1998 government order. They claimed the full-time pay scale given to HSST, Jr. teachers appointed through transfer or promotion, arguing that both groups performed identical duties and responsibilities in the same cadre.

A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, had held that the directly recruited teachers were subjected to grave discrimination. However, the Division Bench reversed the ruling. It held that promoted teachers could not be equated with direct recruits who were freshers, as the full-pay benefit was intended to protect the status that promoted teachers had already enjoyed before their promotion.

The directly recruited teachers then approached the Supreme Court against the Division Bench’s decision.

Senior Advocates V Giri and Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the appellants, argued that the precedents relied upon by the Single Judge were delivered in the previous century and that judicial interpretation of the equal-pay doctrine had since undergone a significant shift.

Court Traces Shift In Equal-Pay Principle

Tracing its precedents, the Supreme Court said that in the previous century, following Randhir Singh v Union of India, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work was treated as an expansive anti-exploitation principle under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution.

“In the last century, following the decision in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, this Court treated equal pay for equal work as an expansive anti-exploitation principle under Articles 14 and 39(d), where the mere sameness of designation – teacher with teacher, accountant with accountant, clerk with clerk, driver with driver, etc. – was sufficient to claim parity. In this century, however, beginning with the decision in State Bank of India vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu and ending with State of Bihar vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, the doctrine has been recast as a strict test based on service rules,” the Court observed.

It said an employee seeking equal pay must establish complete parity in factors such as the source of recruitment, educational qualifications and experience, mode of appointment through a constitutional process, and the nature of responsibilities and accountability.

“Mere functional similarity of work has been held to be no longer enough,” the Court said.

No Cap, It’s A Connect: How Modi Is Speaking Gen Z’s Language

Qualifications, Responsibility Can Matter

The Bench relied on State Bank of India v MR Ganesh Babu, in which the Supreme Court held that equal pay could not be determined merely by the volume of work because there could be qualitative differences in reliability and responsibility. A bona fide, reasonable and rational value judgment by administrative authorities while fixing pay scales would not amount to discrimination, the ruling said.

It also referred to Government of West Bengal v Tarun Kumar Roy, which held that equal pay for equal work could not be automatically applied merely because the nature of work was the same. Educational qualifications, source of recruitment and other relevant considerations could justify treating employees differently.

The Court further relied on State of Haryana v Charanjit Singh, which held that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and that the principle had no mechanical application in every case.

Referring to State of Haryana v Jasmer Singh, State of Haryana v Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology v Manoj K Mohanty and Tarun Kumar Roy, the Bench noted that even employees doing the same work could differ in the quality of their work. Differences in educational qualifications could also justify different pay scales.

Pune-Beed Direct Train Service Launched; Sunetra Pawar Says Ajit Pawar's Promise To Region Fulfilled

Parity Requires More Than Identical Duties

The Bench also referred to State of Bihar v Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee to summarise the legal position.

“It is, therefore, clear on reading the relevant precedents that a mechanical application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work has to be eschewed. It is not the law that the doctrine can never be enforced; but, for such enforcement, a host of factors need consideration. If there is complete parity qua all such factors and should equal pay be claimed for equal work of equal value, the writ court can intervene and grant appropriate relief; otherwise not,” the Court said.

The ruling makes the Court’s approach clear: similarity in day-to-day duties, by itself, does not settle an equal-pay claim. Experience, qualifications, recruitment methods and responsibilities can all become relevant when courts examine whether two groups of employees are genuinely comparable.

Also Watch:

Experience A Valid Basis For Higher Pay

Applying these principles to the Kerala teachers’ case, the Bench held that the difference in experience between HSST, Jr. teachers appointed through transfer or promotion and those recruited directly constituted a valid and intelligible differentia. It said the distinction had a nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and could justify higher pay for the former group.

The appellants also sought to distinguish the Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee ruling by relying on the Calcutta High Court’s decision in State of West Bengal v Anirban Ghosh. They argued that a special leave petition against the Calcutta High Court decision had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Bench rejected the argument, saying all the Supreme Court decisions considered in Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee did not appear to have been placed before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.

“To the extent inconsistent with binding precedents of this Court, the decision in Anirban Ghosh (supra) has to be held per incuriam. Also, the mere fact of dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court would not be sufficient for us to take a different view,” the Bench said.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the two groups of teachers could not claim equivalence in terms of their experience as teachers. It found experience to be a valid criterion for differentiating their pay scales and upheld the Division Bench’s judgment.

Read full story at source