Equal Pay for Equal Work: Supreme Court Rejects Artificial Distinctions Between Temporary and Regular Employees
Appellants: State of Punjab & Ors.
Respondents: Jagjit Singh & Ors.
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar
Hon'ble Justice S.A. Bobde)
Order Date: 26 October 2016
Status : Reportable
Introduction
Can a government employee be paid substantially less merely because they are engaged as a daily-wage, casual, ad hoc or contractual worker, even though they perform the same duties and carry the same responsibilities as a regular employee?
In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., the Supreme Court answered this question firmly: a temporary employee performing the same work, with the same duties and responsibilities as a regular employee, cannot be denied the minimum of the regular pay-scale merely because of the temporary nature of the appointment. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice S.A. Bobde, is an important exposition of the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work”, particularly in the context of temporary employment.
The Issue Before the Court
The appeals arose from conflicting decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning the entitlement of daily-wage and other temporary employees to the minimum of the regular pay-scale.
The employees included persons working as Pump Operators, Fitters, Helpers, Drivers, Plumbers, Chowkidars and others. The central question was whether temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees against corresponding posts were entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
The Full Bench of the High Court had carved out limited exceptions under which temporary employees could receive the minimum of the regular pay-scale—for example, where they had been selected through a fair process against sanctioned posts, or where they had worked continuously for ten years. The Supreme Court found that this approach improperly mixed up the question of regularisation with the distinct question of pay parity. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
What Does “Equal Pay for Equal Work” Mean?
The Supreme Court undertook an extensive review of its earlier decisions and distilled the principles governing equal pay for equal work.
Importantly, the Court clarified that designation alone is not decisive. What matters is the substance of the work.
Among the factors relevant for determining parity are:
- the nature and quality of duties;
- the responsibilities attached to the posts;
- the level of responsibility and reliability;
- the volume of work;
- the qualifications prescribed;
- the hierarchy of the posts;
- the nature of recruitment; and
- whether the duties are qualitatively and functionally comparable. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
The onus of establishing parity lies on the person claiming equal pay. At the same time, the Court made clear that employees cannot be denied parity merely because they are working in a different department if their duties and responsibilities are otherwise identical. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
Thus, “equal pay for equal work” is not a mechanical or mathematical formula. The comparison must be substantive and based on the actual nature of work.
Temporary Status Cannot Become a Reason for Lower Wages
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is its treatment of temporary workers.
The Court reviewed several earlier cases where temporary employees had been granted parity with regular employees. It noted that the principle had already been applied to employees described variously as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad hoc and contractual employees. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
The Court rejected the proposition that temporary employees could automatically be denied pay parity merely because they had not been appointed through the same process as regular employees.
The critical consideration is whether the employee is actually performing the same duties and responsibilities and possesses the qualifications required for the corresponding post.
Regularisation and Pay Parity Are Different Questions
The judgment draws an important distinction between two concepts which are often conflated:
Regularisation of employment and pay parity for work actually performed.
An employee may not have a right to be regularised simply because they have worked for a long period. But that does not automatically mean that the employer can pay them less for performing the same work as a regular employee.
The Supreme Court specifically found that the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had mixed the law relating to regularisation with the law relating to equal pay. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
This distinction is particularly important in public employment, where temporary or contractual arrangements may continue for years.
The Constitutional Foundation
The Court traced the principle of equal pay for equal work to the Constitution, particularly the values embodied in Articles 14, 16 and 39(d).
The judgment also relied upon the Court's earlier decision in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, where equal pay for equal work was recognised as a constitutional principle flowing from the equality provisions.
The Court emphasised that the principle is not simply an administrative policy. It constitutes law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
The Court also referred to Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognises fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value. India ratified the Covenant in 1979. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
Dignity of Labour
The judgment goes beyond technical questions of pay fixation.
The Supreme Court observed that creating artificial distinctions to deny the fruits of labour undermines human dignity. Where one person performs the same work as another but is compelled to accept a substantially lower wage, the Court viewed such inequality as potentially exploitative and coercive.
The Court linked fair remuneration with the dignity and self-worth of the worker and recognised that a person may accept lower wages not voluntarily, but because economic circumstances leave little real choice. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
This makes the judgment particularly significant from a human rights perspective: remuneration is not merely a matter of service rules but can also implicate equality, dignity and freedom from exploitation.
What Did the Supreme Court Ultimately Hold?
The Court set aside the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and affirmed the entitlement of the concerned temporary employees to the minimum of the pay-scale applicable to regular employees holding the same post, though the Court clarified the treatment of allowances. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
In the particular batch before it, the factual position was decisive. The State itself acknowledged that:
- the temporary employees were working against posts also available in the regular establishment;
- temporary employees and regular employees were being assigned the same duties from time to time;
- the temporary employees possessed the qualifications prescribed for regular appointment; and
- there was no other applicable principle that would disentitle them to parity.
The Court therefore held that the principle of equal pay for equal work applied to them. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
Consequently, the Court held:
Temporary employees performing the same work as regular employees are entitled to wages at the minimum of the regular pay-scale applicable to the corresponding post. SC Judgement-213of2013-EqualPay…
Why Does the Judgment Matter?
Jagjit Singh is an important reminder that employment status cannot, by itself, determine the value of labour.
The judgment does not say that every temporary employee is automatically entitled to the pay-scale of a regular employee. The employee must establish the requisite parity in duties, responsibilities, qualifications and other relevant factors.
But once such parity is established, the employer cannot create an artificial distinction merely by labelling one employee “temporary” and another “regular”.
For workers in the public sector, therefore, the judgment provides an important constitutional safeguard against unequal remuneration for substantially identical work.
A Disability Rights Perspective
Although the judgment does not concern disability rights or a claim under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, its reasoning has wider relevance to equality in employment.
For persons with disabilities, employment discrimination can sometimes operate through apparently neutral classifications—such as the nature of appointment, category of engagement, contractual status or job classification. Jagjit Singh reinforces the broader constitutional proposition that formal labels cannot substitute for an examination of the actual work, responsibilities and circumstances of the employee.
However, this should not be read as creating a disability-specific rule from Jagjit Singh. Its direct holding concerns pay parity between temporary and regular employees performing comparable work.
Conclusion
State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh strengthens the constitutional commitment to equal pay for equal work by rejecting artificial distinctions that result in workers being paid less despite performing the same duties and carrying the same responsibilities.
The judgment is ultimately about more than salary. It is about equality, dignity of labour and protection against exploitation.
Where the work is genuinely equal, the Court's message is clear: the temporary label cannot become a licence to pay less.
No comments:
Post a Comment