The Delhi High Court clarified that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” applies only where there is “wholesale identity” between the duties and responsibilities of two compared posts, and that differences in educational qualifications, recruitment process and cadre structure can justify a disparity in pay scales. This view was expressed while hearing a challenge to the classification and pay fixation of two categories of employees in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, where petitioners argued that they were entitled to pay parity with another similarly-situated category. The petitioners claimed that although they performed identical functions and duties, their pay scale was lower than that of the comparator category, and therefore they were entitled to equal pay under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The respondents, representing the GNCTD, contended that the petitioners’ posts were different from the comparator cadre since the educational qualification and recruitment criteria were distinct, and that this distinction was a reasonable classification for the purpose of determining pay scales. It was further submitted that the duties, while overlapping in parts, did not amount to “exactly the same” work and that other factors such as promotional avenues and long-term service conditions further demarcated the two cadres.
In analysing the submissions, the High Court noted that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is rooted in the requirement that employees who are placed in similar circumstances with respect to duties, responsibilities and working conditions must not be discriminated against in matters of remuneration. However, the Court emphasised that this concept does not mean that every similarity in some tasks or duties automatically translates into equal pay entitlements. Instead, the categorisation of posts must involve a holistic and comprehensive comparison of the nature of duties, required skills, educational thresholds, recruitment procedures, and the relevant regulatory framework. The Court observed that in cases where posts differ materially in terms of educational requirements or recruitment processes, the distinction in pay scales could be justified as a reasonable classification.
The bench examined the service rules, pay scales, and recruitment norms governing the petitioners’ cadre and the comparator category. It noted that although there were overlapping tasks performed by the two cadres in day-to-day functioning, the foundational eligibility criteria for appointment — particularly the difference in prescribed educational qualifications — was a valid and material distinction. The High Court remarked that educational qualification is not a superficial factor but a fundamental attribute of the post itself, and that when a higher qualification is mandated for one cadre, the difference in pay scales cannot be equated as discriminatory unless the overall duties are found to be indisputably identical in every significant aspect.
The Court further relied on established principles that for invoking the doctrine of equal pay, there must be no significant functional, structural or recruitment differentiation which could justify differential remuneration. Since the posts in question differed in the qualification threshold and recruitment process — factors that directly influence the nature of duty performance and long-term scope of responsibilities — the disparity in pay was justified. The Court held that the petitioners’ claim did not establish the necessary “wholesale identity” between their cadre and the comparator, and therefore the claim of discrimination on the basis of equal work principle could not be sustained.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the pay differential between the two categories and affirming that differences in educational qualifications and recruitment criteria can constitute a reasonable basis for classification in pay scales. The judgment reaffirmed that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not a rigid rule to be mechanically applied to every situation where roles are partly similar, but a nuanced doctrine that requires an exhaustive examination of duties, recruitment conditions and structural distinctions before equal remuneration can be mandated. The Court’s order underscores that pay disparities justified on the basis of valid and material distinctions do not constitute discrimination under Article 14, provided that the classification is reasonable, rational and aligned with service rules and administrative policy.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.