Equal pay for equal work cannot be applied mechanically; experience must be considered: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that identical job functions and duties alone do not entitle employees to claim "equal pay for equal work" under Article 14 of the Constitution [GP Sangeetha v. State of Kerala & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu upheld a higher pay scale for teachers appointed via promotion or transfer due to their prior service experience.

Legal standard for pay parity has changed over the years, the Bench remarked.

"In the last century, this Court treated equal pay for equal work as an expansive anti-exploitation principle under Articles 14 and 39(d), where the mere sameness of designation was sufficient to claim parity. In this century, however, the doctrine has been recast as a strict test based on service rules. Decisions are legion that equal pay cannot be claimed by merely showing identical work; the claimant-employee must establish complete parity in the source of recruitment, educational qualifications and experience," the Court said.

The Court was hearing appeals filed by directly recruited junior higher secondary school teachers challenging a March 2011 judgment of the Kerala High Court.

The High Court's Division Bench had reversed a single-judge order, and held that promotee teachers formed a distinct class as they were previously full-time permanent lower school teachers with long service. Granting them full-time pay scales was a valid recognition of their past service and status protection unlike direct recruits who entered as freshers, the High Court said.

Aggrieved by the decision, the directly recruited teachers approached the Supreme Court.

Before the apex court, the teachers argued that direct recruits and promotees perform identical duties with equal workloads, and maintaining disparity in pay scales within the same cadre amounted to grave discrimination.

However, the Supreme Court rejected the contention and noted that mechanical application of the equal pay doctrine must be eschewed.

"Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together. 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," the Court stated, quoting settled precedents.

On the appellants' reliance on the Calcutta High Court's decision in State of West Bengal v. Anirban Ghosh, the top court declared that ruling per incuriam to the extent it conflicted with binding Supreme Court precedents.

The Court concluded that experience provide a valid and intelligible benchmark to justify higher pay scales for promotees.

Hence, it found no reason to interfere with the High Court order.

Senior Advocates V Giri and Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the appellants.

[Read Judgment]