The Legality of Dual Pay Scales for the Same Post in Indian Jurisprudence: An Analysis of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' and its Exceptions

Introduction

The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is a cornerstone of service jurisprudence in India, emanating from the constitutional guarantees of equality enshrined in Articles 14, 16, and the directive principle in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. A recurring issue before Indian courts is the legality of prescribing two different pay scales for what appears to be the same post. This practice often leads to claims of discrimination and arbitrariness. This article seeks to analyze the circumstances under which Indian law permits or prohibits the existence of dual pay scales for the same post, drawing upon landmark judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts. The analysis will explore the foundational principles, the recognized exceptions, and the judicial approach to balancing administrative exigencies with the fundamental right to equality.

The Constitutional Mandate of Equal Pay for Equal Work

The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' was firmly embedded into Indian constitutional law by the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union Of India And Others (1982 SCC 1 618), where it was held that while not expressly declared a fundamental right, it is certainly a constitutional goal deducible from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d). The Court emphasized that this principle means that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. This was reiterated in P. Savita And Others v. Union Of India (1985 S SCC 94), where the Court struck down a classification of Senior Draughtsmen into two pay scales based merely on seniority without any difference in duties, as violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court in State Of Punjab And Others v. Jagjit Singh And Others (2017 SCC 1 148) extended this principle, affirming that temporary employees performing work equivalent to their regular counterparts are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale.

However, the doctrine is not an abstract one and its application is nuanced. As observed in State Of U.P And Others v. J.P Chaurasia And Others (1989 SCC 1 121), the principle of equal pay for equal work does not mean that all factors such as experience, reliability, and responsibility should be ignored. The Court acknowledged that an element of value judgment by those charged with administration in fixing pay scales is permissible, so long as it is bona fide, reasonable, and based on an intelligible criterion with a rational nexus to the object of differentiation (State And Others v. Rama Nand And Others, Jammu and Kashmir High Court, 2000).

Permissible Grounds for Differentiation in Pay Scales for the Same Post

While the general rule leans against discriminatory pay scales for the same work, Indian courts have recognized several grounds upon which differentiation in pay, even for posts with similar designations, can be justified. The critical factor is whether the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary.

Differences in Duties, Responsibilities, and Nature of Work

A primary justification for different pay scales is a qualitative difference in the duties and responsibilities attached to the posts, even if the designations are similar. In Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences And Others (1989 SCC 2 235), the Supreme Court upheld different pay scales for a Hearing Therapist and an Audiologist, despite some overlapping functions, based on differences in educational qualifications and the complexity of responsibilities. The Court in State Of Haryana And Others v. Charanjit Singh And Others (2006 SCC 9 321) emphasized that "equal pay for equal work" must transcend mere nominal similarity in job titles and requires a thorough evaluation of responsibilities and the qualitative aspects of the work performed. This was echoed in Government Of W.B v. Tarun K. Roy And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2003), where the very existence of two different pay scales from the beginning was considered suggestive of different duties and functions. The Delhi High Court in Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Others Petitioners v. Kamal Kant Sharma And Others S (Delhi High Court, 2017) noted that if the duties and responsibilities of one post are more onerous or involve higher operational risk, or if a reference post includes responsibility for crucial decisions not present in the subject post, "equal pay for equal work" would not apply, citing SBI v. M.R Ganesh Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 556. The Uttarakhand High Court in DR SANJAY SINGH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS (Uttarakhand High Court, 2018) reiterated this principle.

Differences in Qualifications, Mode of Recruitment, and Experience

The qualifications prescribed for a post and the mode of recruitment can also justify different pay scales. In Mewa Ram Kanojia (supra), differing educational qualifications were a key factor. The Supreme Court in State Of Haryana And Others v. Charanjit Singh And Others (supra) listed educational and technical qualifications and selection processes as relevant factors. Similarly, PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. RAJESH KUMAR JINDAL (Supreme Court Of India, 2019) identified the method of recruitment, minimum educational/technical qualifications required, and the level at which recruitment is made as valid considerations for fixing pay scales. The Delhi High Court in Union Of India Others v. Thakur Singh Others (Delhi High Court, 2006) observed that differences in educational or technical qualifications may have a bearing on skills, justifying pay differences even for similarly designated jobs. However, a crucial caveat was highlighted in Bin v. State (Gujarat High Court, 2012), where the court held that if Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 prescribe multiple qualifications (e.g., degree or diploma) for the same post, creating two different pay scales for that post based solely on which of these prescribed qualifications a person holds is contrary to statutory rules and violative of Article 14.

Hierarchy, Seniority, Merit, and Promotional Avenues

The existence of a structured hierarchy, different grades based on seniority or merit, or different promotional avenues can justify different pay scales for posts that might broadly fall under the same category. In State Of U.P And Others v. J.P Chaurasia And Others (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the creation of two grades (Grade I and Grade II) for Bench Secretaries with different pay scales, where promotion to the higher grade was based on merit-cum-seniority. The Court reasoned that such differentiation, based on legitimate administrative criteria, did not infringe the equality principle. The case of SANT RAM SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (Supreme Court Of India, 1967) illustrates the concept of time-scales of pay (Junior Scale, Senior Scale, Selection Grade) within a service, which inherently means different pay for members based on their progression and seniority. Similarly, in Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering Officers' Association v. State Of Maharashtra And Others (1990 SCC 2 715), seniority was determined by the date of appointment, and continuous officiation counted towards it, forming a basis for progression and potentially different pay levels within the broader cadre. The Uttarakhand High Court in DR SANJAY SINGH CHAUHAN (supra) also noted that pay scales may differ if the hierarchy of posts and their channels of promotion are different, even if duties and responsibilities appear similar.

Different Establishments or Cadres

The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is generally applied to employees within the same establishment or cadre. If posts are in different establishments with different management structures or even in different geographical locations (though owned by the same master), parity may not be applicable (DR SANJAY SINGH CHAUHAN (supra), citing Harbans Lal case and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand). In S.C Chandra And Others v. State Of Jharkhand And Others (2007 SCC 8 279), the Supreme Court held that there was no employer-employee relationship between Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL) and the staff of a proprietary school established for its employees' children, despite HCL providing financial assistance. Consequently, HCL was not liable for their salaries, and claims for pay parity with HCL employees were untenable. However, in Union Of India v. Dineshan K.K . (2008 SCC 1 586), the Supreme Court did uphold the High Court's directive for equal pay for Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles compared to their counterparts in other Central Paramilitary Forces like CRPF and BSF, finding the disparity unjustified by differences in duties or qualifications, thereby intervening where the differentiation was arbitrary despite different organizational affiliations under the broader umbrella of Central Paramilitary Forces.

Government Policy and Administrative Exigencies

Government policy regarding the priority of certain posts can also be a relevant factor in placing them under different pay scales (Government Of Nct Of Delhi v. Kamal Kant Sharma (supra), citing State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.; DR SANJAY SINGH CHAUHAN (supra)). The evaluation of jobs for pay scale purposes is generally left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions, and courts are reluctant to interfere unless there are mala fides or the evaluation is patently arbitrary (Union Of India Others v. Thakur Singh Others (Delhi High Court, 2006)).

Judicial Scrutiny of Dual Pay Scales for the Same Post

When faced with claims of discriminatory dual pay scales for the same post, courts undertake a careful examination of the facts and the justifications offered by the employer.

Instances of Impermissible Differentiation

The judiciary has not hesitated to strike down dual pay scales for the same post where the differentiation lacks a rational basis. As established in P. Savita And Others v. Union Of India (supra), dividing Senior Draughtsmen into two categories with different pay scales, despite identical duties and functions, solely based on seniority for one scale and not the other, was held unconstitutional. The Rajasthan High Court in Gopal Kumawat v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (2015 SCC ONLINE RAJ 9226) and RAJ KUMAR TAILOR v. STATE (EDUCATION DEPARTMENT)ORS (Rajasthan High Court, 2016), citing Union of India v. Anil Kumar, (1999) 5 SCC 743, noted that the allocation of two pay scales for the same post was held to be discriminatory. In Om Prakash v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1987 SCC ONLINE MP 144), the Madhya Pradesh High Court questioned the division of Amins (who were earlier drawing the same scale) into two pay scales based on qualifications for existing incumbents, suggesting it could be against the right to equality. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Narain Dutt v. Dr. Y.S. Parmar University Of Horticulture And Forestry (2012 SCC ONLINE HP 7554) directed the release of a revised higher pay scale to a petitioner (Junior Technician Carpenter) when it was found that another Carpenter with a different designation (Technician Grade-III) but performing similar duties under same recruitment rules was drawing a higher scale. The court observed, "Ordinarily, there should not be two pay scales for the same post." In MANNULAL JAIN v. M.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023), where two posts of Crane Operator were created with a specific pay scale, but the general schedule for Crane Operators indicated a different (revised and higher) pay scale, the court found the appellant entitled to the revised pay scale as per the schedule, implying that there cannot be two different pay scales for the same designated post if one is part of a general, revised pay structure.

The Burden of Proof in Claims for Pay Parity

It is well-settled that the burden of proving parity in work and discrimination in pay lies with the person claiming it. In S.S Grewal v. The Chief Secretary To Government, Punjab, Chandigarh (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2003), the court held that the burden to establish the right to equal pay or the plea of discrimination is on the petitioner. The Supreme Court in State Of Haryana And Others v. Charanjit Singh And Others (supra) emphasized that without concrete evidence demonstrating identical work conditions and requirements, granting equal pay would be unfounded. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996)11 SCC 77 (cited in COLRETD D V SINGH MVC v. STATE OF GUJARAT, Gujarat High Court, 2017), it was held that claimants must substantiate a clear-cut basis of equivalence and resultant hostile discrimination. The principle requires "complete and wholesome identity" between the groups being compared (State of Haryana and Anr. v. Tilak Raj and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2658, cited in COLRETD D V SINGH MVC).

Conclusion

The jurisprudence surrounding dual pay scales for the same post in India reflects a careful balancing act between the constitutional mandate of 'equal pay for equal work' and the practical necessities of public administration. While Article 14 prohibits arbitrary discrimination, it permits reasonable classification. Therefore, the mere existence of two pay scales for posts bearing the same designation is not per se unconstitutional.

Courts will uphold differential pay scales if they are based on intelligible differentia that have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Such permissible differentiators include substantial differences in duties, responsibilities, complexity of work, required qualifications, mode of recruitment, experience, existence within a structured hierarchy (e.g., junior/senior scales, selection grades based on merit/seniority), or placement in different establishments or cadres. Government policy and the recommendations of expert bodies like Pay Commissions also carry significant weight.

However, where two pay scales are prescribed for the exact same post within the same cadre and establishment, with individuals performing identical duties and possessing similar qualifications and responsibilities, without any justifiable basis for differentiation (such as a structured time-scale progression or selection grade), such a practice is likely to be struck down as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The onus is invariably on the claimant to establish parity of work and the discriminatory nature of the pay differentiation. Ultimately, the judicial review aims to ensure fairness and prevent invidious discrimination, while respecting the administrative domain of fixing pay scales based on valid and objective criteria.