Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a claim for pay parity by the respondent, a Speech Therapist/Audiologist at Durgapur Steel Plant, against the Steel Authority of India Ltd. The respondent applied for a non-executive post in response to an advertisement in 1993 and was appointed in 1996 after other candidates declined the offer. He later sought parity in pay with an executive cadre employee, B.V. Prabhakar, at Rourkela Steel Plant, arguing that both posts involved similar responsibilities. The respondent's representation for upgrading his post and changing his cadre was rejected by the authorities, leading him to file a writ petition that was initially dismissed by a Single Judge. However, a Division Bench of the High Court later allowed his appeal, directing the appellants to grant him the pay scale of the executive post retroactively. The appellants contended that the respondent's post was non-executive and that different units had distinct recruitment policies. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding pay parity, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish equivalence between posts. The court concluded that the respondent's claim for pay parity was untenable due to the differences in cadre and the lack of evidence supporting his claims. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Single Judge's decision and setting aside the Division Bench's order.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Pay Parity - Claim for Pay Parity - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 39(d) - The court held that the respondent, holding a non-executive post, could not claim pay parity with an executive cadre employee as the roles and responsibilities were not equivalent, and the recruitment policies of different units allowed for different pay scales. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Single Judge's order (Paras 27-29).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to pay parity with an employee in executive cadre despite holding a non-executive post.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Single Judge's order and setting aside the Division Bench's judgment. The court held that the respondent could not claim pay parity due to the differences in cadre and recruitment policies, and there was no justification for the Division Bench's decision.
Law Points
- pay parity
- executive cadre
- non-executive cadre
- recruitment policy
- equal pay for equal work
- judicial review
- burden of proof
