STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 05-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 5, 2005 
[S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Equal pay for equal work- Doctrine-Applicability- Ledger clerks, 
ledger keepers, pump operators, mali-cum-chowkidar, fitters, petrol men, 
surveyors etc. appointed on daily wages-These daily wagers made a claim 
c 
of minimum wages payable under pay scale of regular Class IV employees 
from the date of their appointments-On reference made to Full Bench, State 
Government directed to give minimum of wages in the scale payable to a 
regular Class JV employee from the date of filing of respective petition--- D 
Whilst appeals were pending before Supreme Court, these daily wagers had 
been regularized-From the date of their regularization they were being paid 
pay scales as payable to a regular Class IV employee-Correctness of-Held: 
Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract 
doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law---BUL equal pay 
must be for equal work of equal value- The principle of' 'equal pay for equal E 
. work'' has no mechanical application in eve1y case-The High Court blindly 
proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" 
applied without examining any relevant factors-Hence, High Court judgment 
set aside-Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration. 
Doctrine: 
''Equal pay for equal work' '---Explained. 
F 
The respondents were daily wagers who were appointed as ledger 
clerks, ledger keepers, pump operators, mali-cum-chowkidar, fitters, petrol G 
men, surveyors etc. All of them claimed the minimum wages payable under 
the pay scale of regular Class IV employees from the date of their 
appointments. The question whether or not these persons were entitled to 
the minimum of the pay scale of a regular Class IV employee was referred 
to a Full Bench of the High Court for consideration. Following the Full 
57 
fl 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Bench decision the respondents have been directed to be given the 
T 
minimum of the wages in the scale payable to a regular Class IV employee 
from the date of the filing of the respective petition. Hence the appeal. 
Whilst these appeals were pending before this Court, all the 
B 
respondents had been regularized. From the date of their regularization 
they were being paid pay scales as payable to a regular Class IV employee. 
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether the directions of the High Court to pay the minimum wage 
in the scale payable to a Class IV employee from the date of their filing 
c the respective petition is required to be interfered with? 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" 
is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of 
D law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle 
of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every 
case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or 
characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those 
who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a 
E reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters 
merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes 
of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale 
to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional 
avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact 
that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, 
F in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are 
different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though 
persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where 
persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with 
due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who 
G are evaluated by competent authority cannot be challenged. A 
classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a 
difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say 
a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that 
he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular 
service. The quality of work 

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