When Raising Plea Of "Equal Pay For Equal Work" Onus Falls Upon Employee To Prove Substantial Similarity In Nature Of Work: J&K High Court

Shedding light on the intricate balance between designation, nature of work, and other pertinent factors Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has observed,

“However, the person, who asserts that there is equality in work has to prove it, however, the equality is not to be based in designation or nature of work, but on several other factors like, responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentially involved, functional need and requirements commensurate with the position in hierarchy, the qualification required”.

Justice Wani made these observations in a case filed by three petitioners - Jagdish Kumar, Reyaz Ahmed, and Princy Thaploo. The trio, appointed as Data Operators in the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB), challenged the disparity in pay scales compared to employees holding similar-sounding positions in other government departments like Agriculture, Forestry, and the High Court itself.

The petitioners argued that Article 16(1), read with Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Indian Constitution, guarantees "equal pay for equal work." They claimed that posts advertised for Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators in the aforementioned departments carried a higher pay scale than theirs.

However, the respondents, represented by Mr. Amit Gupta, Additional Advocate General, refuted these claims, arguing that the nature and workload of the petitioners' positions were distinct from those they sought parity with. They contended that the petitioners voluntarily accepted their appointments without objection and thus had no grounds to seek higher pay.

Upon scrutinising the contentions the court emphasized the principle that equal pay should depend on the nature of work performed, rather than mere volume.

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in "State Bank of India & Anr. Vs M. R. Ganesh Babu & Ors" (2002), Justice Wani emphasized that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done as mere designation similarities wouldn't suffice. Factors like responsibilities, reliability, experience, and confidentiality play a crucial role, the court underscored.

The petitioners' reliance on advertisements for posts with titles like "Computer Assistant" and "Computer Analyst" in the Fishery Department and "Computer Operator" in the Forest Department was deemed insufficient. The Court stressed that the petitioners failed to establish that these positions entailed responsibilities and complexities identical to their Data Operator roles in the SPCB.

“The petitioner though in order to buttress their claims have referred to the aforesaid facts and the documents, yet have failed to show that the aforesaid posts they are appointed against and the posts with which the petitioners are seeking parity are same and similar in regard to the functions, responsibility, reliability and confidentiality”, the bench remarked.

Ultimately, the court found the petitioners' claim lacking in merit and hence dismissed the same.

Case Title: Jagdish Kumar Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 50

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment