Equal Pay For Equal Work Requires “Wholesale Identity” With Compared Cadre; Difference In Educational Qualifications Justifies Pay Disparity: Delhi HC

Background Facts

The Petitioner Association is a registered body representing Laboratory Technicians working in hospitals under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). They demanded the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect based on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. They claimed on basis of parity with Laboratory Technicians employed under the Central Government like the National Institute of Communicable Diseases and AIIMS.

The Association filed a petition before the Delhi High Court in 2005. The matter was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2017. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. It was held that the claim for 5th CPC pay scale was not established and that the Recruitment Rules were not amended in accordance with the 5th CPC recommendations.

Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Delhi High Court by filing the writ petition.

It was argued by the Association that denial of the 5th CPC pay scale was discriminatory when similarly designated personnel under the Central Government had already been granted the same scale. They also contended that the 5th CPC recommendations regarding qualifications were only prospective and applied only to future direct recruits. Further, the Association submitted that the feeder post of Laboratory Assistant was carrying a higher pay scale than the promotional post of Laboratory Technician which was arbitrary.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the MCD that Central Pay Commission recommendations are not automatically applicable to MCD employees unless adopted by the Corporation. It pointed out a difference in recruitment qualifications that the Laboratory Technicians in MCD hospitals are required to possess only Matriculation, whereas Laboratory Technicians under the Central Government must hold a B.Sc. degree.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not operate in the abstract. Relying upon the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, it was held that parity in pay cannot be claimed merely on the basis of similarity in designation or nature of duties when there are material differences in educational qualifications, recruitment processes, or service conditions. Educational qualification is a valid and rational basis for classification and differential pay structures.

It was further observed that the principle of Equal pay for equal work can only be invoked when there is a complete and wholesale identity between the groups in terms of recruitment, qualifications, and responsibilities. Mere similarity in designation or a broad overlap in job functions is insufficient if there is difference in the recruitment criteria or the minimum educational standards.

It was further observed by the Court that there was difference in minimum educational qualifications between MCD Laboratory Technicians (Matriculation) and Central Government Laboratory Technicians (B.Sc. degree). Therefore, the claim for pay parity became unsustainable due to this distinction.

It was also noted that the implementation of Pay Commission recommendations is a matter of policy, subject to adoption by the competent authority and alignment with existing Recruitment Rules. The MCD is not bound to adopt Central Government pay scales without due consideration of its own service rules and requirements.

With respect to the contention of petitioners regarding the feeder post carrying a higher scale than the promotional post, it was observed that a stagnant pay hierarchy is an administrative anomaly which requires correction. The court cannot grant a remedy of a specific higher scale. Such anomalies fall within the exclusive domain of the Anomalies Committee or the Pay Commission.

It was concluded by the Division Bench that the petitioners' claim for pay parity cannot be granted due to difference in educational qualifications in recruitment criteria between Laboratory Technicians employed by the MCD and those under the Central Government.

Hence, the Tribunal's order was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently the writ petition filed by the Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association (Regd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 12205/2019

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ramesh Rawat and Rohit Bhardwaj, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondents : Monika Arora, CGSC with Subhrodeep Saha, Prabhat Kumar, Anamika Thakur and Abhinav Verma, Advs. for R-2/MCD