Right To 'Equal Pay For Equal Work' Is Constitutionally Enforceable: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the provision of 'equal pay for equal work' envisaged under Article 39(d) of the Constitution is a constitutionally enforceable right.Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia observed,"Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India provides for equal pay for equal work. This right of the person for equal pay for equal work is recognized as a fundamental...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the provision of 'equal pay for equal work' envisaged under Article 39(d) of the Constitution is a constitutionally enforceable right.
Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia observed,
"Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India provides for equal pay for equal work. This right of the person for equal pay for equal work is recognized as a fundamental right by various pronouncements of the Apex Court and the law is settled that the right to equal pay for equal work is a constitutional enforceable right."
The observation was made while adjudicating upon a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking equal pay at par with another Librarian and Assistant Librarians of the Education Department.
In around April 1968, the Department of Technical Education was separated from the Department of Education, and the pay scale was revised in Himachal Pradesh, hence the pay scale of Librarians was also revised.
It was the case of the Petitioner that the Respondents have not given him equal pay scale, as is given to the similarly situated person(s) in the Technical Education Department.
Earlier, the Court had directed the Respondent department to consider the case of Petitioner, which was rejected, hence this petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging the rejection order.
The counsel for the respondents submitted that the Education Department has different pay scales than that of the Technical Education Department and so the pay scale cannot be granted to the petitioner as the Assistant Librarians who were granted the pay scales equivalent to the Education Department and who was working in the Technical Department was earlier working in the Education Department and that's why the scale was given.
Findings
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court noted that vide a previous order, one Sh. P.K. Kaushal, who was also working as Librarian in Technical Education Department was held to be entitled to the pay scale at par with the Assistant Librarians in Education Department with all consequential benefits.
Citing parity, the High Court observed that in these circumstances it is a fit case where the respondents are required to be directed to grant equal pay for equal work and to grant the scale of Assistant Librarian as was given to other similarly situated persons in P.K. Kaushal's case.
Further, the Court held,
"Now the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Librarians, who were given the higher pay scale and who were working in the Technical Education Department are the same to that of the petitioner and so the petitioner cannot be denied the equal pay for equal work. The petitioner is protracted litigation since long and he has retired from the service in the year 2007 and in these circumstances it is a fit case where the respondents are required to be directed to grant equal pay for equal work."
Stating this, the writ petition was allowed and the Respondents were directed to grant the pay scale of Assistant Librarian to the petitioner with all consequential benefits till his retirement along with his pension.
A cost sum of Rs. 10,000 was also granted by the court to the Petitioner, since petitioner was made to remain in the Courts for long years of his life including his retirement for more than 13 years.
Case Title: Rattan Lal Bharadwaj vs State Of HP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 5