Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has recently held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be mechanically applied merely on the ground that two categories of employees perform functionally similar duties, and that a difference in experience between directly recruited and promoted employees can constitute a valid basis for a difference in pay scales.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu ruled so while dismissing appeals filed by a group of directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers, Junior (HSST, Jr.) in Government-aided schools in Kerala, who had sought parity in pay scale with HSST, Jr. teachers appointed through transfer or promotion.

The appellants were appointed through direct recruitment under a 1998 government order and had claimed the full-time pay scale extended to HSST, Jr. teachers who were appointed by transfer or promotion, contending that both categories performed identical duties and responsibilities within the same cadre. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Kerala High Court held that the appellants had been subjected to grave discrimination. However, the Division Bench reversed the judgment, holding that promoted teachers could not be treated as equal to direct recruits who were freshers as the benefit of full pay being intended merely to protect the status such promoted teachers already enjoyed prior to promotion.

Aggrieved by the Division Bench's ruling, the directly recruited teachers (appellants) approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocates V Giri and Dr Menaka Guruswamy argued for the appellants contending that the precedents relied upon by the Single Judge had been rendered in the last century, and that judicial interpretation of the equal pay doctrine has undergone a significant shift since then.

Tracing the precedents, the Court observed that “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.”

It further observed that, “decisions are legion that equal pay cannot be claimed by merely showing identical work; the claimant-employee must establish complete parity in the source of recruitment, educational qualifications and experience, mode of appointment through a constitutional process, and nature of responsibilities and accountability. Mere functional similarity of work has been held to be no longer enough.”

The bench also relied on State Bank of India v MR Ganesh Babu, wherein it was held that equal pay cannot be judged by the mere volume of work since there may be qualitative differences as regards reliability and responsibility, and that a bona fide, reasonable, and rational value judgment by administrative authorities in fixing pay scales would not amount to discrimination.

It also relied on Government of West Bengal v Tarun Kumar Roy, wherein it was held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work “does not contemplate that only because the nature of the work is same, irrespective of an educational qualification or irrespective of their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations the said doctrine would be automatically applied. The holders of a higher educational qualification can be treated as a separate class. Such classification, it is trite, is reasonable. Employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualification can, thus, be treated differently.”

It further relied on State of Haryana v Charanjit Singh, which endorsed that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and that the doctrine has no mechanical application in every case. Reiterating 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 observed that, “Even though persons may do the same work, their quality or work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by the competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales.”

Referring to State of Bihar v Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, the bench summarised the legal position, holding that “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.”

Applying the aforesaid to the present case, the bench held that the difference in experience between transferee/promotee HSST, Jr. teachers and direct recruit HSST, Jr. teachers provided a valid and intelligible differentia, having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved to justify grant of a higher pay to the former.

Appellants also sought to distinguish Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee relying Calcutta High Court's State of West Bengal v Anirban Ghosh, contending that an SLP against that decision had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The bench, however, rejected this reliance holding that, “all the decisions of this Court on the topic, which were noticed in Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (supra), do not appear to have been placed before the Division Bench. 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.”

Applying the aforesaid, the Supreme Court held that the two groups of teachers cannot claim equivalence qua experience in rendering service as teachers, and that it constituted a valid criterion for differentiation in pay scales. The bench, thus, upheld the Division Bench's judgment.

Case: GP Sangeetha & Ors Etc. Etc. v State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 948

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Appearance:

For Appellants: Mr V Giri, Sr. Adv.; Mr K Rajeev, AOR; Mr Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Mr Rahul Narang, Adv.; Ms Niveditha R Menon, Adv.; Mr Aditya Verma, Adv.; Mr Tarun Kumar, Adv.; Dr Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv.; Mr Jose Abraham, AOR; Ms Shaswati Parhi, Adv.; Ms Arunima Das, Adv.; Ms Kashish Jain, Adv.; Ms Bhumika Yadav, Adv.; Mr Anto Robert, Adv.

For Respondents: Mr Shibu Devasia Olickal, AOR; Mr Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR; Mr Alim Anvar, Adv.; Ms Anu K Joy, Adv.; Mr Santhosh K, Adv.; Mrs Devika Al, Adv.; Mr PV Dinesh, Sr. Adv.; Mr Harshad V. Hameed, AOR; Mr Dileep Poolakkot, Adv.; Ms Ashly Harshad, Adv.; Mrs Ashly Harshad, Adv.; Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv.; Mr Romy Chacko, Sr.Adv.; Mr Anup Kumar, AOR; Mr Joe Sebastian,Adv.; Mr Akshat Singh, Adv.; Mr Sachin Singh Dalal, Adv.; Mr Harikumar V., AOR; Mr V Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv.; Mr PA Noor Muhamed, AOR; Mrs Giffara S, Adv.




Tags: