STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus TILAK RAJ AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 14-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARY ANA AND ANR. 
v. 
TILAK RAJ AND ORS. 
JULY 14, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Principle of 'equal pay for equal work'-Applicability of-Held, for its 
C applicability wholesale identity is required between the one who is claiming 
and the one who has already earned such pay scale-The principle cannot 
be always translated into mathematical formula-Constitution of India, 
1950-Article 14. 
D 
Respondents who were employed on daily wages with the appellant- State 
filed writ petition before High Court inter alia contending that they were to 
be paid same salary as paid to regular employees, since the nature of work 
done by them was similar. Appellant-State disputed the claim of respondents 
on the ground that they were educationally not qualified for appointment to 
the post and that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was factually 
E and legally not applicable to their case. High Court allowed the writ petitions 
directing that respondents be paid the minimum pay in the scale of pay 
applicable to the regular employees. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. The principle of"equal pay for equal work" is not always easy 
to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work 
done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same 
organization. Equal pay for equal work is a concept which requires for its 
applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees 
G claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have 
already earned such pay scales. The problem about equal pay cannot always 
be translated into a mathematical formula. [524-F; 526-El 
H 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors., fl9961 ll SCC 77; 
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers -
522 
STATEv. TILAKRAJ[PASAYAT,J.] 
523 
(Recognised) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 119881 3 SCC 91; State of A 
UP. v. J.P. Chaurasia, 1198911 SCC 121; Harbans Lal v. State of Himachal 
Pradesh, [19891 4 SCC 459; Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram 
Choudhary, 1199515 SCC 210 and State of Orissa and Ors. v. Balaram Sahu 
and Ors., 12003) 1 SCC 250, relied on. 
2. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim B 
even any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all 
purposes including a claim for equal pay and allowances. Tc claim a relief on 
the basis of equality, it is for the claimants to substantiate a clear cut basis of 
equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becoming eligible 
to claim rights on par with the other group vis-a-vis an alleged discrimination. C 
No material was placed before the High Court as to the nature of the duties 
of either categories and it is not possible to hold that the principle of"equal 
pay for equal work" is an abstract one. [526-E, F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4570 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 2237 of2000. 
Praveen Kr. Rai for Ms. Kavita Wadia for the Appellants. 
Jasbir Maik for S.K. Sabbarwal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted. 
D 
E 
The State of Haryana is in appeal against the judgment rendered by a F 
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the 
respondents herein were directed to be paid the miniruum pay in the scale of 
pay applicable to the regular employees. 
Factual position so far as relevant for determination of the controversy G · 
needs to be noted in brief. 
The thirty five respondents were appointed at different points of time 
as helpers on daily wages in the Haryana Roadways. They filed writ petition 
claiming that they were entitled to regularization in view of service rendered 
for long period and/or that they were to be paid the same salary as paid to H 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A regular employees since the nature of work done by them was similar. In other 
words for the second relief claimed principle of "equal pay for equal work" 
was pressed into service. They asserted to be educationally qualified for the 
post. The appellants disputed the claim of the respondents that they were 
educationally qualified for appointment to the post of helper and also took 
B the stand that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was factually and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.