Case Note & Summary
This case involved an appeal against the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which directed the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, to grant pay scales to the respondents, who were working as Senior Dietician and Dietician, at par with their counterparts in the Government of Punjab. The respondents claimed that their pay scales were not equivalent to those of similar posts in Punjab, leading to their representation and subsequent legal actions. Initially, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed their application, stating that equal pay for equal work was not applicable due to differences in job responsibilities. The respondents then approached the High Court, which ruled in their favor, prompting the Union Territory Administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted that the High Level Equivalence Committee found significant differences in the nature and quantum of duties between the posts in Chandigarh and Punjab. The Court referenced previous judgments emphasizing that equal pay claims must be based on substantial equivalence in job roles, which was not demonstrated in this instance. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, reinstating the Tribunal's decision and allowing the appeal without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Conditions of Service - Pay Scale Entitlement - Article 309 of the Constitution - The High Court's direction for equal pay scales for Dieticians was set aside as the nature of duties and responsibilities were not comparable with those in Punjab. The Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work requires similarity in job roles, which was not established in this case. Held that the High Court erred in equating the posts without expert evaluation (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents were entitled to pay scales at par with their counterparts under the Government of Punjab.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, ruling that the respondents were not entitled to the same pay scales as their counterparts in Punjab.
Law Points
- Equal pay for equal work
- Conditions of Service
- Article 309
- expert evaluation of job equivalence
