# STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2016] 7 S.C.R. 350
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-10-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 213 of2013
- **Bench:** Jagdish Singh Khehar, S.A. Bobde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-ors-v-jagjit-singh-ors-31615
- **Pages:** 95

## Headnote

-:
Labour law - Principl<:_ of equal pay for equal work -
Application of- Claim of pay parity by temporary employees (dailywage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual
basis, contractual employees and the like) with regular employees
- Temporary employees appointed against posts which were also
available in the regular cadre/establishment - Duties and
responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees same as were
being discharged by regular employees - Employees possessed the
qualifications prescribed for appoi11tme11t on regular basis - Held:
Principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all
the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right
to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale (at the
lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), of regularly engaged
government employees, holding the same post - Principle of equal
pay for equal work.
Principles of equal pay for equal work - Invocation of. by
temporary employees - Parameters laid down by this Court -
Elucidated.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 All the concerned temporary employees (dailywage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on
casual basis, contractual employees and the like), would be entitled
to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest
grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees,
holding the same post. [Para 58) (444-E)
1.2 The exercise of determining whether the concerned
employees, were rendering similar duties and responsibilities,
~as wen: being discharged by regular employees, holding the
same/corresponding posts, would require the application of the
350
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
summarized herein. All the temporary employees in the instant
bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also
available in the regular cadre/establishment. During the course
of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were
being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities,
which at some point in time, were assigned to regular .employees.
Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also
posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to
temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no
room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged
by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were
the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is
not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees
did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on
regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that
any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity,
on any of the principles summarized herein. There can be no
doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be
applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to
vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of
the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees,
holding the same post. [Para 57) [443-F-H; 444-A-D)
2. The judgments pertaining to temporary employees
wherein this Court expressed the legal position with reference
to the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' were considered
and the following deduction are made:
351
A
8
c·
D
E
(i) The 'onus of proof', of parity in the duties and
F
responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under
the principle of 'equal pay .for equal work', lies on the person
who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish,
that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge
equal work of equal value, as the reference post. [Para 42) [421C-D]
G
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj
K. Mohanty (2003) 5 SCC 188: 2003 (3) SCR 753;
Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju
Mathur (2011) 2 SCC 452:2011 (1) SCR 883; Steel
H
352
A
B
c
SUPR

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 225,700. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

A
B
-..
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 350
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
v.
JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 213 of2013)
OCTOBER 26, 2016
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
-:
Labour law - Principl<:_ of equal pay for equal work -
Application of- Claim of pay parity by temporary employees (dailywage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual
basis, contractual employees and the like) with regular employees
- Temporary employees appointed against posts which were also
available in the regular cadre/establishment - Duties and
responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees same as were
being discharged by regular employees - Employees possessed the
qualifications prescribed for appoi11tme11t on regular basis - Held:
Principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable to all
the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right
to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale (at the
lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), of regularly engaged
government employees, holding the same post - Principle of equal
pay for equal work.
Principles of equal pay for equal work - Invocation of. by
temporary employees - Parameters laid down by this Court -
Elucidated.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 All the concerned temporary employees (dailywage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on
casual basis, contractual employees and the like), would be entitled
to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (at the lowest
grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees,
holding the same post. [Para 58) (444-E)
1.2 The exercise of determining whether the concerned
employees, were rendering similar duties and responsibilities,
~as wen: being discharged by regular employees, holding the
same/corresponding posts, would require the application of the
350
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
summarized herein. All the temporary employees in the instant
bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also
available in the regular cadre/establishment. During the course
of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were
being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities,
which at some point in time, were assigned to regular .employees.
Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also
posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to
temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no
room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged
by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were
the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is
not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees
did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on
regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that
any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity,
on any of the principles summarized herein. There can be no
doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be
applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to
vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of
the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees,
holding the same post. [Para 57) [443-F-H; 444-A-D)
2. The judgments pertaining to temporary employees
wherein this Court expressed the legal position with reference
to the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' were considered
and the following deduction are made:
351
A
8
c·
D
E
(i) The 'onus of proof', of parity in the duties and
F
responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under
the principle of 'equal pay .for equal work', lies on the person
who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish,
that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge
equal work of equal value, as the reference post. [Para 42) [421C-D]
G
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj
K. Mohanty (2003) 5 SCC 188: 2003 (3) SCR 753;
Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju
Mathur (2011) 2 SCC 452:2011 (1) SCR 883; Steel
H
352
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 7 S.C.R.
Authority of India Limited v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya
(2011) 11 SCC 122:2010 (13) SCR 429; National
Aluminum Company Limited v. Anania Kishore Rout
(2014) 6 SCC 756:2014 (7) SCR 406 - relied on.
(ii) The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the
claimant, is in a "different department" vis-a-vis the reference
post, does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim,
under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Persons
discharging identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the
matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different
departments of Government. (Para 42) [421-F]
Randhir Singh v. Union of India 1982 (3) SCR
298:(1982) 1 SCC 618; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
(1983) 1 SCC 305:1983 SCR (2) 165 - relied on.
(iii) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work', applies to
D
cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or
irrational classification. For equal pay, the concerned employees
with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which
besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality
and sensitivity. [Para 42) 421-G-H)
E
Randhir Singh v. Union of India 1982 (3) SCR
298:(1982) 1 SCC 618; Federation of All India Customs
and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) v. Union
of India 1988 (3) SCR 998:1988 (3) SCC 91; Mewa
Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
1989 (1) SCR 957:(1989) 2 SCC 235; Grih Kalyan
F
Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India 1991 (1) SCR
15:(1991) 1 SCC 619; S.C. Chandra v. State of
Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279: 2007 (9) SCR 130 -
relied on.
G
H
(iv) Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different
departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and
responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot
claim the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked,
merely because the subject and reference posts have the same
nomenclature. [Para 42] [422-B-C]
. ;
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
Randhir Singh v. Union of India 1982 (3) SCR
298:(1982) 1 SCC 618; State of Haryana v. Haryana
Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6
SCC 72 : 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 118; Hukum Chand
Gupta v. Director General, Indian Council of
Agricultural Research (2012) 12 SCC 666:2012 (8)
SCR 831 - relied on.
(v) In determining equality of functions and responsibilities,
under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', it is necessary
to keep in mind, that the duties of the two posts should be of
equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of
pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility,
reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid
classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be
legitimate and permissible. The nature of work of the subject
post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference
post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also,
the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity
cannot be claimed under the principle of 'equal pay for equal
work'. [Para 42) (422-C-E]
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise
Stenographers (Recognized) v. Union of India 1988 (3)
SCR 998: 1988 (3) SCC 91; State Bank of India v. MR.
Ganesh Babu (2002) 4 SCC 556:2002 (3) SCR 149;
State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR
288:(1989) 1 SCC 121; Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers'
ij_nion v. Union of India 1991 (1) SCR 15:(1991) 1
sec 619 - relied on.
(vi) For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has
to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been
selected, on the basis of a regular process o°r recruitment. An
employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be
placed in the regular pay-scale. [Para 42) (422-F)
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Mano}
K. Mohanty (2003) 5 SCC 188: 2003 (3) SCR 753 -
relied on.
(vii) Persons performing the same or similar functions,
353
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
354
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
duties and resp<msibilities, can also be placed in different payscales. Such as-'selection grade', in the same post. But this
difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such asmerit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria. [Para 42) (422GJ
State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR
288:(1989) 1 sec 121 - relied on.
(viii) If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post
vis-a-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to
con!;lude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are
qualitatively similar or comparable. In such a cause, the principle
of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be invoked. [Para 42) (422H; 423-AJ
Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical
Sciences 1989 (1) SCR 957 : (1989) 2 SCC 235;
Government of WB. v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347:
2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 656 - relied on.
(ix) The reference post, with which parity is claimed, under
the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', has to be at the same
hierarchy in the service, as the subject post. Pay-scales of posts
may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and
their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and
responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as
against a superior post, .such as a promotional post. (Para 42)
[423-B-C)
Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey 2000 (4) Suppl.
SCR 465 : (2000) 8 SCC 580; Hukum Chand Gupta\!.
Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (2012) 12 SCC 666: 2012 (8) SCR 831 -
relied on.
(x) A comparison between the subject post and the reference
post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be
made, where the subject post and the reference post are in
different establishments, having a different management. Or even,
where the establishments are in different geographical locations,
though owned by the same master. Persons engaged differently,
and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay
parity. (Para 42) [423-DJ
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
Harbans Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1989) 4 SCC
459:1989 (3) SCR 662; Official Liquidator v. Dayanand
(2008) 10 SCC 1:2008 (15) SCR 331 - relied on.
(xi) Different pay-scales, in certain eventualities, would be
permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy
in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of
one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher
nature of operational work/risk, the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' would not be applicable. And also when, the reference
post includes the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that
is not so for the subject post. [Para 42) [423-E-F]
State Bank of India v. MR. Ganesh Babu (2002) 4 SCC
556:2002 (3) SCR 149 - relied on.
(xii) The priority given to different types of posts, under
the prevailing policies of the Government, can also be a relevant
factor for placing different posts under different pay-scales. Herein
also, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be
applicable. [Para 42) (423-G]
State of Haryana v. Harya11a Civil Secretariat Personal
Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72:2002 (1) S~ppl. SCR
118 - relied on.
(xiii) The parity in pay, under the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work', cannot be claimed, merely on the ground, that at an
earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post,
were placed in the same pay-scale. The principle of 'equal pay
for. equal work' is applicable only when it is shown, that the
incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge
similar duties and responsibilities. [Para 42) [423-H; 424-A]
State of West Bengal v. West Bengal Minimum Wages
Inspectors Association (2010) 5 SCC 225: 2010 (3)
SCR 367 - relied on.
(xiv) For parity in pay-scales, under the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work', equation in the nature of duties, is of
paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one
post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the
principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties
of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject
355
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
,H
'·
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
A
post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable.
Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality
control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality
control, the principle would not be applicable. (Para 42) (424-BC)
B
Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Mw~ju
Mathur (2011) 2 SCC 452:2011 (1) SCR 883 - relied
on.
c
D
E
F
G
H
(xv) There can be a valid classification in the matter of payscales, between employees even holding posts with the same
nomenclature i.e., between those discharging duties at the
headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office
level, when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar. [Para 42) [424D-E]
Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director General, Indian
Council qf Agricultural Research (2012) 12 SCC 666:
2Cl12 (8) SCR 831 - relied on.
(xvi) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not
be applicable, where a differential higher pay-scale is extended
to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same
designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on
account of lack of promotional avenues. [Para 42] (424-E-F)
Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director General, Indian
Council qf Agricultural Research (2012) 12 SCC 666:
2012 (8) SCR 831 - relied on.
(xvii) Where there is no comparison between one set of
employees of one organization, and another set of employees of
a different organization, there can be no question of equation of
pay-scales, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', even
if two organizations have a common empfoyer. Likewise, if the
management and control of two organizations, is with different
entities, which are independent of one another, the principle of
'equ~l pay for equal work' would not apply. [Para 42) (424-F-G]
S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279:
2_007 (9) SCR 130; National Aluminum Company Limited
v. Anania Kishore Rout (2014) 6 SCC 756:2014 (7)
SCR 406 - relied on.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
3.1 A perusal of the judgment rendered by the full bench of
the High Court (in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., CWP
no. 14796 of 2003) reveals, that the High Court conspicuously
focused its attention to the decision of the Constitution Bench in
the Secretary, State of Karnataka case. While dealing with the
judgment, the full bench expressed the view, that though at the
first impression, the judgment appeared to expound that payment
of minimum wages drawn by regular employees, had also to be
extended to persons employed on temporary basis, but a careful
reading of the same would show that, that was not so. It is not
possible to concur with the inference drawn by the full bench.
The Constitution Bench the Secretary, State of Karnatakll case
clearly distinguished the issues of pay parity, and regularization
in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the concept
of 'equality' would be applicable (as had indeed been applied by
the Court, in various decisions), but the principle of 'equality'
could not be invoked for absorbing temporary employees in
Government service, or for making temporary employees regular/
permanent. All the observations made therein, relate to the
subject of regularization/permanence, and not, to the principle of
'equal pay for equal work'. The Constitution Bench
unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court
ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers be paid wages
equal to the salary, at the lowest grade of their cadre. This
deficiency was made good, by making such a direction. The High
Court seriously erred in interpreting the judgment rendered by
this Court in the Secretltry, State of Karnataka case, by placing'"
reliance for drawing its inferences with reference to the subject
of pay parity. [Para 48] (431-D-F; 433-D-G; 434-A-B]
3.2 To substantiate its inference drawn from the judgment
rendered by this Court in tlle Secretary, Stltte of Kltrnlttaka Clise,
the Full Bench of the High Court, placed reliance on State of Punjab
v. Surjit Singll and while doing so, reference was made to the
obseITations recorded therein. The Full Bench erred in referring
to the said observations to draw its conclusions. It is apparent,
that this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singfl did hold, that the
determination rendered in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case
was in exercise of the power vested in this Court, under Article
142 of the Constitution of India. But the said observation does
357
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
358
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
not lead, to the conclusion or the inference, that the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' is not applicable to temporary
employees. In fact, there is a positive take-away for the temporary
employees. The Constitution Bench would, be deemed to have
concluded, that to do complete justice to the cause of temporary
employees, they should be paid the minimum wage of a regular
employee, discharging the same duties. (Para 49) (434-C; 436D-G]
3.3 Even in the case urider reference-Stllte of Punjflb v. Surjit
Singh, this Court accepted the principle of 'equal pay for equal
work', as applicable to temporary employees, by requiring the
State to examine the claim of the respondents for pay parity, by
appointing an expert committee. The expert committee was
required to determine, whether the respondents satisfied the
conditions stipulated in different judgments of this Court including
Stllte of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, wherein this Court had acceded
to the proposition, that daily-wagers who were rendering the same
duties and responsibilities as regular employees, would be entitled
to the minimum wage payable to regular employees. And had
therefore, remanded the matter back to the High Court for a
fresh adjudication. In view thereof, the claim of the temporary
employees, for minimum wages, at par with regularly engaged
Government employees, cannot be declined, on the basis of Stllle
of Punjab v. Surjit Singh case. [Para 49) [436-H; 437-A-C)
3 •. 4 The observations in Satya Prakash case, relied upon by
the full bench of the High Court, dealt with the issue of
regularization, and not with the concept of 'equal pay for equal
work'. This gains further ground from the fact that the appellants
in the Satya Prakash case had approached this Court, to claim
the benefit of the judgment in the Secretary, $tale of Karnataka
case, wherein the issue canvassed was of regularization, and not
pay parity. Therefore, reliance on Secre1<1ry, State of ·Karn<1taka
case, for determining the question of pay parity, resulted in the
High Court drawing an incorrect inference. (Para SO) (438-G-H;
439-G)
3.5 The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating
upon the controversy had concluded, that temporary employees
were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely
for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and
.,
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made
two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the
two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of
the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The full bench carved
an exception for employees who were not appointed against
regular sanctioned posts, if their services had remained
continuous (with notional breaks, as well), for a period of 10 years.
This category of temporary employees, was extended the benefit
of wages at the minimum of the regular pay-scale. The above
position adopted by the High Court reveals, that the High Court
intermingled the legal position determined by this Court on the
subject of regularization of employees, while adjudicating upon
the proposition of pay parity, emerging under the principle of
'equal pay for equal work'. It is this mix-up, which resulted in the
High Court recording its conclusions. The High Court extended
different wages to temporary employees, by categorizing them
on the basis of their length of service. This is clearly in the teeth
of _judgment in the Dllily R{lfed CllSUlll Lllbour Employed case,
wherein the classification was held to be violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. Based on the consideration recorded,
the determination in the impugned judgment rendered by the
full bench of the High Court, whereby it classified temporary
employees for differential treatment on the subject of wages, is
clearly unsustainable, and is liable to be set aside. (Para 51) (439H; 440-A, G-H; 441-A-E]
3.6 The decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High
Court in Avfar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. and the decision
rendered by the division bench of the High Court in Stllte of Punjllb
& Ors. v. Rlljinder Singh & Ors. is set aside. The decision rendered
in Stllte of Punjllb & Ors. v. Rajinder Kumllr is affirmed with the
modification, that the concerned employees would be entitled to
the minimum of the pay-scale, of the category to which they belong,
but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the posts
held by them. [Para 52) [441-G-H)
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC
1:2006 (3) SCR 953; State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh
(2009) 9 sec 514:2009 (12) SCR 394; State of
Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 sec 321:2005
-
r
(4) Suppl. SCR 57; Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar
359
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
A
(2010) 4 SCC 179:2010 (3) SCR 450; Daily Rate
Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department
through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of
India (1988) 1 SCC 122:1988 (1) SCR 598 - referred
to.
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
4.1 There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of
different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been
expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by
this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same
is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the
Constitution oflndia. The parameters of the principle, have been
summarized. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also
been extended to temporary employees (differently described
as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the
like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has
been summarized. (Para 54) (442-B-C]
4.2 It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny
fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot
be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and
responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action
besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human
dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does
not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to
his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of
his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that
his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the
lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others
similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement,
emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action
is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary
subjugation. [Para 55) [442-D-F)
4.3 India is a signatory to International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 having ratified the
same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation,
in view of different provisions of the Constitution, and in view of
the law declared u/Art.141 of the Constitution, the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' constitutes a clear and unambiguous
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
right and is vested in every employee-whether engaged on regular
or temporary basis. [Para 56) [443-D-E)
Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637;
Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief. CPWD (1986) 1
SCC 639; BhaKJt'an Dass v. State of Haryana (1987) 4
SCC 634:1987 (3) SCR 714; Ghaziabad Development
Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary (1995) 5 SCC 210:1995
(2) Suppl. SCR 171; State of Haryana v. Jasmer SinKh
(1996) 11 SCC 77:1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 592; State of
Puniab_ v. Devinder SinKh (1998) 9 SCC 595; State of
Haryana v. Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123:2003 (1) Suppl.
SCR 522; Dha111'ad District PWD Literate Daily-Wage
Employees Association v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2
SCC 396:1990 (1) SCR 544; State of U.P. 1: Putti Lal
(2006) 9 SCC 337; Uttar Pradesh Land Development
Corporation v. Mohd Khursheed Anwar (2010) 7 SCC
739; Surendra Nath Pandey v. Uttar Pradesh
Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2010) 12 SCC 400- referred
to.
Case Law Reference
1982 (3) SCR 298
relied on
Para 42 (ii), (iii), (iv)
1983 SCR (2) 165
relied on
Para 42 (ii)
1988 (3) SCR 998
relied -0n
Para 42 (iii), (v)
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 288
relied on
Para 42 (v), (vii)
1989 (1) SCR 957
relied on
Para 42 (iii), (viii)
1991 (1) SCR 15
relied on
Para 42 (iii), (v)
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 465
relied on
Para 42 (ix)
2002 (3) SCR 149
relied on
Para 42 (v), (xi)
2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 118
relied on
Para 42 (iv), (xii)
2003 (3) SCR 753
relied -0n
Para 42 (i), (vi)
2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 656
relied on
Para 42 (viii)
2007 (9) SCR 130
relied on
Para 42 (iii), (xviii)
2008 (15) SCR 331
relied on
Para 42 (x)
361
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
A
2010 (~) SCR 367
relied on
Para 42 (xiii)
2011 (U SCR 883
relied on
Para 42 (i), (xiv)
20~0 (13) SCR 429
relied on
Para 42 (i)
2012 (8) SCR 831
relied on
Para 42 (iv), (ix),
B
(xv), (xvi)
2014 (7) SCR 4'06'"
relied on
Para 42 (i), (xviii)
(198~) 1 sec 637
referred to
Para 26
(198~) 1 sec 639
referred to
Para 27
c
1987 (3) SCR 714
referred to
Para 28
1989 (~) SCR 662
relied on
Para 42 (x)
1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 171
referred to
Para 31
1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 592
referred to
Para32
D
(1998) 9 sec 595
referred to
Para33
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 522
referred to
Para34
2006 (3) SCR 953
referred to
Para 35, 48, 49, 50
1990 (lJ SCR 544
referred to
Para36
E
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 57
referred to
Para 36, 49
(200~> 9 sec 337
referred to
Para37
2009 (12) SCR 394
referred to
Para 38, 49
c2010) 1 sec 739
referred to
Para40
F
c2010) 12 sec 400
referred to
Para 41
2010 (3) SCR 450
referred to
Para 50
1988 (1) SCR 598
referred to
Para 51
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 213 of
2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.20 I 0 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA NO. 948 of2009
WITH
H
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
C. A. Nos. 10356, 10357, 10358, 10360 and I 0361 of2016
C. A. Nos. 211, 212, 214, 217, 218, 219, 220,221, 222, 223, 224,
225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,245,246,247,
248,249,257,260,262,966,2231,2299,2300,2301,2702, 7150,8248,
8979, 9295 of2013
C.A. Nos. 10362, 10363, 10364, 10365 and 10366 of2016
C.A. No. 871and10527 of2014.
Rakesh Khanna, AAG, Ms. Nabhanya Sharma, Jagjit Singh
Chhabra, Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Kuldip Singh (NP) , M/s Mahalakshmi
Balaji & Co. (NP) and Ms. Naresh Bakshi (NP), Advocates for the
appellant.
Shi sh Pal Laler, S. D. Sharma, Son it Sinhmar, Balbir Singh Gupta,
S. K. Sabharwal (NP), Jagdev Singh Manhas, Dr. Kailash Chand (NP),
Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni (NP), Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashwani Bhardwaj, S.
L. Aneja, A. Venayagam Balan, Ms. Manju Sharma, Anil Kumar Tandale
(NP), R. C. Kaushik (NP), Ashok Mathur (NP) , A. S. Pundir (NP),
Ms. Vanita Mehta (NP), Subhasish Bhowmick (NP), Prem Prakash
(NP), Balraj Dewan (NP) and Yash Pal Dhingra, Advocates for the
respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. I. Delay in filing and refiling
Special Leave Petition (Civil) .... .CC no. 15616 of2011, and Special
Leave Petition (Civil) .... CC no. 16434 of201 I is condoned. Leave is
granted in all special leave petitions.
2. A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. (LPAno. 337 of2003,
decided on 7.1.2009), set aside, in an intra-court appeal, the judgment
rendered by a learned single Judge of the High Court, in Rajinder Singh
& Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP no. 1536 of 1988, decided on
5.2.2003). In the above judgment, the learned single Judge had directed
the State to pay to the writ petitioners (who were daily-wagers working
as Pump Operators, Fitters, Helpers, Drivers, Plumbers, Chowkidars
etc.), minimum of the pay-scale, revised from time to time, with
permissible allowances, as were being paid to similarly placed regular
employees; arrears payable, were limited to a period of three years,
363
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
364
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 7 S.C.R.
prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. In sum and substance, the
above mentioned division bench held, that temporary employees were
not entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale, as was being paid to similarly
placed regular employees.
3. Another division bench of the same High Court, in State of
Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar (LPA no. I 024 of 2009, decided on
30.8.2010), dismissed an intra-Court appeal preferred by the State of
Punjab, arising out of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge in
Raj inder Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP no. 14050 of 1999,
decided on 20.11.2002), and affirmed the decision of the single Judge, in
connected appeals preferred by employees. The letters patent bench
held, that the writ petitioners (working as daily-wage Pump Operators,
Fitters, Helpers, Drivers, Plumbers, Chowkidars, Ledger Clerks, Ledger
Keepers, Petrol Men, Surveyors, Fitter Coolies, Sewermen, and the like),
were entitled to minimum of the pay-scale, alongwith permissible
allowances (as revised from time to time), which were being given to
similarly placed regular employees. Arrears payable to the concerned
employees were limited to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.
In sum and substance, the division bench in State of Punjab & Ors. v.
Raj inder Kumar (LPA no. I 024 of 2009) affirmed the position adopted
by the learned single Judge in Rajinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
& Ors. (CWP no. l 536of1988). It is apparent, that the instant division
bench, concluded conversely as against the judgment rendered in State
of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh (LPA no. 337 of2003), by the earlier
division bench.
4. It would be relevant to mention, that the earlier judgment
rendered, in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. (LPA no.
337 of2003) was not noticed by the later division bench - in State of
Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar (LPA no. I 024 of2009). Noticing a
conflict of views expressed in the judgments rendered by two division
benches in the above matters, a learned single Judge of the High Court,
referred the matter for adjudication to a larger bench, on 11.5.2011. It
is, therefore, that a full bench of the High Court, took up the issue, for
resolving the dispute emerging out of the differences of opinion expressed
in the above two judgments, in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
(CWP no. 14 796 of2003), alongwith connected writ petitions. The full
bench rendered its judgment on 11.11.2011. The present bunch of cases,
which we have taken up for collective disposal, comprise of a challenge
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
to the judgment rendered by the division bench of the High Court in
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Singh & Ors. (LPA no. 337 of2003,
decided on 7. J .2009); a challenge to the judgment, referred to above, in
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rajinder Kumar (LPA no. I 024 of 2009,
decided on 30.8.20 IO); as also, a challenge to the judgment rendered by
the full bench of the High Court in Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
(CWPno. 14796 of2003, decided on 11.11.2011). This bunch of cases.
also involves challenges to judgments rendered by the High Court, by
relying on the judgments referred to above.
5. The· issue which arises for our consideration is, whether
temporarily engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees
and the like), are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale, alongwith
dearness allowance (as revised from time to time) on account of their
performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on
regular basis, against sanctioned posts. The full bench of the High Court,
while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that such
like temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular
pay-scale, merely for reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers
and the regular employees were similar. However, it carved out two
exceptions, and extended the minimum of the regular pay to such
employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court
in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:-
"(! )A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against
the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing
a selection process based upon fairness and equality of
opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled
to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of
engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees
are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their
services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by
the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient
long period i.e. for I 0 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or
contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the
regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption
that work of perennial nature is available and having worked
for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in
365
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
366
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if
any, may have to be considered separately in terms oflegally
permissible scheme.
(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale
after more than three years and two months of completion
of I 0 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or
contractual employee shal I be entitled to arrears for a period
of three years and two months."
6. The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present set
of appeals, necessitates a bird's eye view on the legal position declared
by this Court, on the underlying ingredients, which govern the principle
of 'equal pay for equal work'. It is also necessary for resolving the
controversy, to determine the manner in which this Court has extended
the benefit of"minimum of the regular pay-scale" alongwith dearness
·allowance, as revised from time to time, to temporary employees (engaged ·
on daily"wage basis, as ad-hoc appointees, as employees engaged on
casual basis, as contract appointees, and the like). For the aforesaid
purpose, we shall, examine the above issue, in two stages. We shall first
examine situations where the principle of'equal pay for equal work' has
been extended to employees engaged on regular basis. And thereafter,
how the same has been applied with reference to different categories of
temporary employees.
7. Randhir Singh v. Union of lndia1, decided by a three-Judge
bench: The petitioner in the instant case, was holding the post ofDriverConstable in the Delhi Police Force, under the Delhi Administration.
The scale of pay of Driver-Constables, in case of non-matriculates was
Rs.210-270, and in case of matriculates was Rs.225-308. The scale of
pay of Drivers in the Railway Protection Force, at that juncture was
Rs.260-400. The pay-scale of Drivers in the non-secretariat offices in
Delhi was, Rs.260-350. And that, of Drivers employed in secretariat
offices in Delhi, was Rs.260-400. The pay-scale of Drivers of heavy
vehicles in the Fire Brigade Department, and in the Department of
Lighthouse was Rs.330-480. The prayer of the petitioner was, that he
should be placed in the scale of pay, as was extended to Drivers in other
governmental organizations in Delhi. The instant prayer was based on
the submission, that he was discharging the same duties as other Drivers.
His contention was, that the duties of Drivers engaged by the Delhi
1 <1982) 1sec618
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J .]
Police Force, were more onerous than Drivers in other departments.
He based his claim on the logic, that there was no reason/justification, to
assign different pay-scales to Drivers, engaged in different departments
of the Delhi Administration.
(ii) This Court on examining the above controversy, arrived at the
conclusion, that merely the fact that the concerned employees were
engaged in different departments of the Government, was not by itself
sufficient to justify different pay-scales. It was acknowledged, that though
persons holding the same rank/designation in different departments of
the Government, may be discharging different duties. Yet it was held,
that if their powers, duties and responsibilities were identical, there was
no justification for extending different scales of pay to them, merely
because they were engaged in different departments. Accordingly it
was declared, that where all relevant considerations were the same,
persons holding identical posts ought not to be treated differently, in the
matterofpay. Ifthe officers in the same rank perform dissimilar functions
and exercise different powers, duties and responsibilities, such officers
could not complain, that they had been placed in a dissimilar pay-scale
(even though the nomenclature and designation of the posts, was the
same). It was concluded, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal
work', which meant equal pay for everyone irrespective of sex, was
deducible from the Preamble and Articles 14, 16 and 39( d) of the
Constitution. The principle of'equal pay for equal work', was held to be
applicable to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification
or irrational classification, though both sets of employees (-engaged on
temporary and regular basis, respectively) performed identical duties
and responsibilities.
(iii) The Court arrived at the conclusion, that there could not be
the slightest doubt that Driver-Constables engaged in the Delhi Police
Force, performed the same functions and duties, as other Drivers in the
services of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. Even
though he belonged to a different department, the petitioner was held as
entitled to the pay-scale ofRs.260-400.
8. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India~. decided by a five-Judge
Constitution Bench: It is not necessary for us to narrate the factual
controversy adjudicated upon in this case. In fact, the main issue which
arose for consideration pertained to pension, and not to wages. Be that
'(1983) 1sec304
367
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
368
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
as it may, it is ofutmost importance to highlight the following observations
recorded in the above judgment:-
"32. Having succinctly focused our attention on the
conspectus of elements and incidents of pension the main
question may now be tackled. But, the approach of court
while considering such measure is of paramount importance.
Since the advent of the Constitution. the State action must
be directed towards attaining the goals set out in Part IV of
the Constitution which, when achieved, would permit us to
claim that we have set up a welfare State.