The Supreme Court has held that a senior employee holding the same post cannot be paid less than a junior unless the disparity is supported by valid and demonstrable factors.

“It is fundamental that a senior officer cannot be paid less than a junior officer holding the same post...A junior receiving a higher pay compared to the pay of the senior has to be justified with reference to valid factors.”, the Court said.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu heard an appeal filed by a Reader (Associate Professor) in Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed his writ petition against the disparity in pay scale compared to his junior.

Appellant-Jai Prakash Singh and one-Dr. Pradeep Kumar had been appointed as Lecturers on the same day in 1990. The appellant had obtained his Ph.D. in 1990, while Kumar obtained his Ph.D. in 2002.

Despite this, Kumar's pay was subsequently fixed higher than that of the appellant after the Allahabad High Court directed that he be granted two advance increments for his Ph.D.

The appellant's representation seeking parity with his junior was rejected by the authorities. The Allahabad High Court also dismissed his challenge in 2018, following which he moved to the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court termed the High Court's approach to be erroneous, and observed:

“The position regarding fixation of pay of the appellant and Dr. Pradeep Kumar is so grossly anomalous that the same violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Undisputed facts are that both the appellant as well as Dr. Pradeep Kumar were serving as Readers in the Department of Education and that the appellant had obtained M. Phil and Ph. D degrees prior to Dr. Pradeep Kumar obtaining the same.”

Further, the court noted that no demonstrable difference in the “qualifications for the post, source of recruitment, experience, responsibility and accountability is placed on record which could be proffered as a justification for denying equal pay to the appellant for equal work of equal value.”

“The Government Orders, relied upon by Ms. Goel, embody policy decisions of the Government; however, the same have to yield to the over-arching principles of equality and equal pay for equal work enshrined in the Constitution to the extent they are inconsistent therewith. We, thus, see no valid reason to uphold the impugned order of the High Court. The same stands set aside.”, the Court held.

Cause Title: JAI PRAKASH SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 993

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Dixit, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR Ms. Ritika Sethi, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dixit, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR