Distinct Cadre and Functional Differences Negate Claim for Pay Parity Under Equal Pay for Equal Work

Applicant No. 1 is an association representing administrative staff in All India Radio (AIR) and Doordarshan; Applicant No. 2 is a Senior Store Keeper/Head Clerk

In 1995, the government ordered the conversion of vacant Property Assistant posts (Programme Cadre) into Senior Store Keeper posts (Administrative Cadre) to phase out the former cadre

Following the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, Property Assistants were granted an upgraded pay scale (GP Rs. 4600), while the applicants’ posts were placed in GP Rs. 4200

The applicants filed this O.A. seeking pay parity with Property Assistants, alleging that the posts are identical, interchangeable, and merged

The respondents countered that the posts belong to distinct cadres with different recruitment rules, duties, and promotional avenues

1. Whether the applicants, holding posts in the Administrative Cadre, are entitled to pay parity with the post of Property Assistant in the Programme Cadre on the principle of "equal pay for equal work"

The court primarily applied the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya (1993), which held that parity is not applicable if a classification is reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought

Sohan Singh Sodhi v. Punjab Electricity Board (2007) and Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) to establish that parity cannot be claimed when educational qualifications, cadre structures, or promotional hierarchies differ

C. Girijamal (Dr) v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh that the doctrine is inapplicable in areas of specialized professional service

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to establish that the nature of their work was identical to that of Property Assistants

While the 1995 order allowed the conversion of vacant posts, it did not constitute a formal merger or re-designation; the cadres remained structurally distinct

The court noted that Property Assistants handle programme documentation and transmit work (Programme Cadre) and promote to Programme Executive, whereas the applicants perform clerical functions (Administrative Cadre) and promote to Administrative Officer

Since the recruitment rules and functional requirements are different, the Tribunal reasoned that the higher pay scale for Property Assistants was a cadre-specific decision by expert bodies (Pay Commissions)

Applying the precedents, the court held that there was a reasonable classification between the two cadres, and judicial interference in pay fixation is unwarranted unless there is clear arbitrariness

The court concluded that distinct cadre structures and promotional hierarchies justify the pay differential

The Original Application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made