The Supreme Court has held that the Equal Pay Doctrine cannot be applied mechanically merely because two categories of employees perform functionally similar duties. The Court also held that differences in experience between direct recruits and promoted employees can justify different pay scales.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu delivered the ruling while dismissing appeals filed by directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers, Junior (HSST, Jr.) in Government-aided schools in Kerala.
The appellants sought the same pay scale as HSST, Jr. teachers appointed through transfer or promotion.
Direct Recruits Sought Full-Time Pay Scale
The appellants secured their appointments through direct recruitment under a 1998 government order.
They sought the full-time pay scale available to HSST, Jr. teachers appointed through transfer or promotion. They argued that both groups belonged to the same cadre and performed identical duties and responsibilities.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Kerala High Court initially held that the appellants had suffered grave discrimination.
However, the Division Bench reversed that decision.
It held that promoted teachers could not be equated with fresh direct recruits. The Division Bench found that the full-pay benefit protected the status that promoted teachers already enjoyed before promotion.
The directly recruited teachers then approached the Supreme Court.
Appellants Rely On Evolution Of Equal Pay Principle
Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocates V Giri and Dr Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the appellants.
They argued that the precedents relied upon by the Single Judge dated back to the previous century. They further submitted that judicial interpretation of the equal pay principle had significantly evolved since then.
The Supreme Court examined several precedents while considering the argument.
Supreme Court Traces Development Of Equal Pay Principle
The Bench referred to Randhir Singh v. Union of India.
It noted that the Supreme Court had earlier treated equal pay for equal work as an expansive anti-exploitation principle under Articles 14 and 39(d).
Under that approach, similarity in designation could provide a basis for seeking pay parity.
The Court noted that the legal position subsequently evolved.
Beginning with State Bank of India vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu and extending to State of Bihar vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, the doctrine developed into a stricter test based on service rules.
The Bench held that identical work alone does not establish an entitlement to equal pay.
Employees claiming parity must establish equivalence across several relevant factors. These include recruitment source, educational qualifications, experience, mode of appointment, responsibilities and accountability.
Mere functional similarity is therefore insufficient to establish a claim for equal pay.
Volume Of Work Alone Cannot Determine Pay
The Bench relied on State Bank of India v. MR Ganesh Babu.
That judgment held that courts cannot determine equal pay merely by comparing the volume of work. Qualitative differences may exist in factors such as responsibility and reliability.
It also recognised the role of administrative authorities in fixing pay scales. A bona fide, reasonable and rational value judgment by those authorities would not amount to discrimination.
Educational Qualifications Can Justify Different Treatment
The Supreme Court also referred to Government of West Bengal v. Tarun Kumar Roy.
That decision held that similarity in work does not automatically establish a right to equal pay.
Authorities may consider educational qualifications, recruitment sources and other relevant circumstances.
Employees with higher educational qualifications can form a separate class. Therefore, employees performing similar work may receive different pay based on their qualifications.
Equal Pay Requires Assessment Of Multiple Factors
The Bench further relied on State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh.
That decision recognised that equal pay must apply to equal work of equal value. It also established that the principle does not operate mechanically in every case.
The Court additionally referred 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 observed that employees performing similar work may still differ in the quality of their work.
A Selection Committee may assess employees on merit while considering seniority. A higher pay scale granted following such an evaluation cannot be challenged merely because others perform similar work.
Differences in educational qualifications can also justify different pay scales.
Complete Parity Required For Judicial Intervention
Referring to State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, the Supreme Court summarised the governing legal position.
The Court said judges must avoid mechanically applying the Equal Pay Doctrine.
However, the principle remains enforceable where the circumstances justify its application.
Courts must consider several factors before granting parity. Employees must establish complete equivalence across the relevant criteria.
Where such parity exists, a writ court may grant appropriate relief for equal work of equal value. Without complete parity, such intervention would not follow.
Experience Provides Valid Basis For Pay Difference
The Bench then compared transferee/promotee HSST, Jr. teachers with directly recruited HSST, Jr. teachers.
It found a difference in their experience.
The Supreme Court held that this difference constituted a valid and intelligible differentia. It also had a nexus with the object behind granting higher pay to transferee or promoted teachers.
Experience therefore provided a valid basis for maintaining different pay scales.
Reliance On Anirban Ghosh Rejected
The appellants also sought to distinguish Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee by relying on the Calcutta High Court’s decision in State of West Bengal v. Anirban Ghosh.
They pointed out that the Supreme Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition against that decision.
The Bench rejected the argument.
It observed that the Calcutta High Court Division Bench did not appear to have considered all the Supreme Court decisions discussed in Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee.
The Supreme Court held that Anirban Ghosh would be per incuriam to the extent that it conflicted with binding Supreme Court precedents.
It also clarified that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition did not provide sufficient reason to take a different view.
Supreme Court Upholds Division Bench Judgment
The Supreme Court concluded that direct recruits and transferee/promotee HSST, Jr. teachers could not claim equivalence regarding teaching experience.
The difference in experience constituted a valid criterion for maintaining different pay scales.
The Supreme Court accordingly upheld the Division Bench’s judgment and dismissed the appeals filed by the directly recruited teachers.
