Case Title: Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. V. Thana Singh and Ors
The Supreme Court has stated that two posts should not be deemed identical in order to demand wage parity unless there is a complete similarity between them.
The court was considering an appeal submitted by the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), in which parity in pay rates for two positions—Head Clerks and Internal Auditors—in the Board's Group XII was a question. There should be parity, the High Court had declared.
One of the key arguments made in another similar case of Punjab State Power Corporation v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal, was that since the Board has upheld the wage scale between the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors for more than 20 years, changing it would be arbitrary and illegitimate.
The panel of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee rejected this claim, noting that if it were to be upheld, pay parity would have to be extended to all other positions, which would have a significant financial impact on the Board's finances as it is a consumer-focused institution.
The court must remember that a simple variation in working conditions does not constitute discrimination, the panel ruled. It is not appropriate to treat the two positions as equivalent in order to demand wage parity unless there is total overlapping between them. Internal Auditors were undoubtedly previously assigned to the same group, namely Group XII; however, the educational requirements and recruiting process for the position of Head Clerk are different.
The court further stated that the person seeking parity must present evidence to the court to demonstrate that the nature of tasks and functions is similar and that they are entitled to a parity of pay scales in order to establish parity in pay scales and the nature of duties and responsibilities.
They cannot claim parity of pay scale with that of the Head Clerk just because a variety of different roles have been placed under Group XII. Even more so considering that 45% of Internal Auditors were promoted from Circle Assistant/Assistant Revenue Accountant and 55% were hired directly. While allowing the appeal, the court noted that the High Court had neglected to consider the fact that Head Clerks and Internal Auditors have quite different responsibilities and a completely different path to promotion, and that the option to do so was ostensibly consciously exercised.