UNION OF INDIA Vs. THAKUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Equal pay for equal work? is no longer an abstract principle or an unenforceable Directive Principle of State Policy. A long line of pronouncements by the Apex Court has, by judicial expansion, added content to that doctrine and read the same as part and parcel of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. These decisions show a marked shift from the view expressed by their Lordships in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi Versus Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 that the principle of ?equal pay for equal work? was an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do with Article 14. The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of Indiaand Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 618, Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637, Surinder Singh Vs. Engineer-in- Chief, (1986) 1 SCC 639, Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of Haryana, (1987) 4 SCC 634, Jaipal and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 354, P.Savita and Ors. Vs. Union of India, 1985 (Supp) SCC 94, V.Markendeya and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 191, State of Tamilnadu Vs. M.R. Alagapan and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2006 and Garhwal Jal Sansthan Marmachari Union Vs. State of UP and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2143, have authoritatively settled the proposition that denial of equal pay for equal work would tantamount to denial of equality before the law and equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court has at the same time cautioned that equation of posts and pay scales is not for the courts to embark upon. That is the job of the government and expert bodies. The Court has also held that the burden to prove that there is unequal pay for equal work is upon the petitioners and it is for them to establish and place on record material that would constitute inequality in the matter of emoluments upon proof of equality in the work performed by the employees. The Court has also recognised the principle that the principle of ?equal pay for equal work? has no application where qualitative difference in functions and responsibilities is established. The Court has held that equality of work may vary from post to post and from institution to institution. Consequently, the petitioners must establish that their duties, responsibilities and functions are similar to those with whom they seek parity in pay scales. Similarly, the Court has, in State of Tamilnadu Vs. M.R. Alagapan and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2006, recognised that educational qualifications and the method of selection could constitute distinguishing features where the principle would have no application to justify parity of pay scales.

(2.) In State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh, 1997 (1) SCC 137, their Lordships indicated the difficulties inherent in comparing and evaluating the quality of work done by different persons in different organisations or even in the same organisation. The Court observed:

(3.) We may also refer to the observations made by their Lordships in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993) 1 SCC 539, while discussing the parameters on which a comparison shall have to be drawn in the matters of nature and duties, responsibilities and functions before the principle of ?equal pay for equal work? can be applied and relief granted. The Court observed: