- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vijay Kumar And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants were appointed as part-time lecturers. A Single Judge of the High Court ordered that, notwithstanding their appointment letters, they receive a consolidated honorarium of Rs 2000 per month rather than the minimum of the regular lecturer pay scale. A Division Bench dismissed the appellants’ Letters Patent Appeal. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, which issued notice limited to the question of remuneration during their tenure as part-time lecturers.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, during the subsistence of their part-time appointments, the appellants are entitled to be paid at least the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for regular lecturers on the principle of “equal pay for equal work.”
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- They performed the same, and allegedly greater, quantity of work as regular lecturers and therefore should receive the minimum pay scale for that post.
- None of the appellants was employed elsewhere; thus, the rationale for denying them parity in pay did not exist.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The appellants were bound by the terms of their part-time appointments, which only provided an honorarium.
- The principle of equal pay for equal work did not apply because part-time lecturers could engage in other gainful employment during non-teaching hours.
- They sought time to produce evidence showing the appellants had additional employment, though ultimately conceded an inability to furnish such proof.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar (1992) 1 SCC 489; 1992 19 ATC 500 | Consideration of entitlement to absorption/regularisation and related benefits. | The Court held the case inapposite because the present dispute concerned only quantum of pay to part-time lecturers, not their absorption or regularisation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the State failed to provide any documentary evidence that the appellants held outside employment or performed lesser work. In the absence of such proof and in light of the appellants’ denial and assertion of equal or greater workload, the Court applied the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work.” It concluded that, while notice was confined to remuneration and did not extend to claims of absorption or regularisation, the State was obliged to pay at least the minimum of the regular lecturer pay scale for as long as the appellants continued as part-time lecturers.
Holding and Implications
Appeals allowed in part. The Court directed the respondent-State to pay the appellants the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for regular lecturers for the period their part-time appointments subsist. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision affords immediate financial relief to the appellants but expressly leaves unresolved any question of their absorption or regularisation. It reinforces existing jurisprudence that the principle of equal pay applies when identical duties are performed, even by employees holding part-time designations.
Order
1. Leave granted. Heard on merits.
2. The notice issued in these matters was limited only to the question of payment according to the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post of regular lecturers to the appellants during their employment as part-time lecturers.
3. A learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that the appellants be paid a consolidated honorarium of Rs 2000 per month instead of payment according to the prescribed pay scale for lecturers notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in their letter of appointment. A Letters Patent Appeal against that decision in the writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench. These appeals by special leave are by the appellants against that order.
4. The appellants initially contended that they were also entitled to absorption and regularisation as lecturers in addition to the benefits attaching to a regular appointment from the very inception. However, as stated earlier, only a limited notice to the extent indicated was given.
5. The respondents in response to the notice have stated in the counter-affidavit that the appellants as part-time lecturers are bound by the conditions of their appointment and are not entitled to claim anything in excess thereof. It is also contended by the respondents that the part-time lecturers were free to be gainfully employed elsewhere in their spare time which advantage in fact these appellants had taken. On this basis, the respondents contended that the appellants were not entitled even to the minimum of the pay scale of the post of lecturer since the principle of equal pay for equal work did not apply on the facts of this case. Accordingly, we gave opportunity to the respondents to substantiate their assertion even before us and made an order on 5-8-1992 as follows:
“Learned counsel for the respondents prays for grant of two weeks' time to file the material documents to support the respondents' contention that the petitioners were mere part-time employees who are not entitled even to the minimum of the pay scale of the post of regular lecturers because during the remaining time they were gainfully employed elsewhere and also the nature and amount of work done by them is not equal to that of the regular lecturers.”
Thereafter in the affidavit dated 20-8-1992 filed on behalf of the respondents apart from reiterating generally the earlier assertion, it has been clearly stated as under:
“The part-time lecturers are known to be doing some job or the other in addition to their job as part-time lecturers. However, the respondent-State is not in a position to give any documentary evidence to establish this fact against the petitioners.”
It may be stated that in the rejoinder filed by the appellants this assertion of the State has been emphatically denied and it has been clearly stated that none of the appellants was employed at any other place and, therefore, there was no other source of earning for the appellants in addition to the remuneration paid to them for working as part-time lecturers. The appellants also expressly stated that they had been working for more hours every day as compared to the regularly appointed lecturers. In other words, the appellants claim to have been working more and not merely equal to the regular lecturers, their nature and quality of work being the same.
6. On these facts, it can hardly be disputed that on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the respondent-State has to pay to the appellants the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post, the duties of which they are discharging during the period their employment as part-time lecturers subsists. The notice being limited to this extent in the present case, the appellants' claim for absorption and regularisation on the post is not a matter for consideration herein and this decision would not create or confer on them any right for regularisation on this basis, if no such right is available to them otherwise.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar (1992) 1 SCC 489, (1992) 19 ATC 500. That decision is of no assistance to the respondents in the present case wherein the question of absorption or regularisation of the appellants is not in issue and the only question is of the quantum of payment during the subsistence of appointment as part-time lecturers, on the above facts. It is unnecessary to burden this order with reference of the several decisions of this Court wherein it has been repeatedly held that in such a situation during the period such an employment subsists, the employer is bound to pay to such an employee according to the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the post, the duties of which such an employee is discharging.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed to the extent indicated. It is directed that the appellants shall be paid according to the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the regularly appointed lecturers, the duties of which post they are discharging during the period their appointment as part-time lecturers subsists.
9. No costs.
Alert