Equal Pay For Equal Work Not Automatic: Delhi High Court Rejects MCD Lab Technicians' Plea For Pay Parity With Central Govt Staff

The Delhi High Court has held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not automatic and cannot be invoked merely on the basis of similarity in job designation or duties, particularly when educational qualifications and recruitment rules differ.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan thus dismissed a plea filed by an Association of Laboratory Technicians employed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) seeking pay parity with Laboratory Technicians working under the Central Government.

The petitioners had contended that they were performing identical duties and responsibilities and were therefore entitled to the same pay scale.

Rejecting the claim, the High Court observed,

“In view of the admitted difference in educational qualifications in recruitment criteria between Laboratory Technicians employed by the MCD and those under the Central Government, and in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (Supra), this Court finds no merit in the Petitioners‟ claim for pay parity.”

While the MCD's Recruitment Rules prescribe Matriculation as the minimum educational qualification, the Central Government mandates a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) degree for Laboratory Technicians.

Such a distinction in the entry-level academic requirements, the Court said, constitutes an “intelligible differentia”.

“It is well-settled that a difference in prescribed minimum qualifications is a valid ground for classification…The Petitioners' reliance on parity based on nomenclature or broadly similar duties cannot override the aforesaid settled principle of service jurisprudence, and as such, pay parity cannot be claimed where the underlying recruitment criteria and the prescribed qualifications for a post are fundamentally distinct.”

The Court also rejected Petitioner's contention that the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission regarding qualifications were only prospective. It observed,

“The implementation of Pay Commission recommendations is a matter of policy, subject to adoption by the competent authority and alignment with existing recruitment rules and cadre structures. The MCD is not bound to mechanically adopt Central Government pay scales without due consideration of its own service rules and requirements.”

The Petitioner Association also highlighted a perceived anomaly where the feeder post (Laboratory Assistant) compared to the promotional post (Laboratory Technician) allegedly carry a higher pay scale.

The Court however said that while a stagnant pay hierarchy is an administrative anomaly that requires correction, the remedy does not lie in the Court granting a specific higher scale.

As such, it dismissed the plea.

Appearance: Mr. Ramesh Rawat and Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advs. for Petitioners; Dr. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika Thakur and Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advs. for R-2/MCD.

Case title: Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association (Regd.) And Anr v. UoI

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

Click here to read order