Equal Pay for Equal Work requires identity in qualifications, recruitment, and functional responsibilities.

The five applicants, serving as Staff Nurses and Nursing Sisters at the National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, sought parity in Grade Pay (GP).

Following the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the applicants were granted a GP of Rs. 4,200/-.

They claimed entitlement to a GP of Rs. 4,600/- as per Item No. XII(1), Section II, Part B of the First Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

The applicants based their claim on parity with counterparts in the Lala Ram Sarup (LRS) Institute and the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), asserting that their educational qualifications and duties were identical.

Their representations and subsequent appeals were rejected by the respondents between 2011 and 2015.

1. Whether the applicants, as employees of an autonomous body, are automatically entitled to the pay structure prescribed in Part B of the First Schedule of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.

2. Whether the principle of "equal pay for equal work" applies to the applicants in comparison with Staff Nurses in Government Hospitals, LRS Institute, and CGHS.

The court primarily applied the Office Memoranda (OM) dated 30.08.2008 and 07.10.2008 issued by the Department of Expenditure, which stipulate that Part B of the First Schedule of the CCS (RP) Rules does not automatically apply to autonomous bodies and requires individual functional justification and Ministry of Finance concurrence.

It relied on the Supreme Court ruling in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002), which held that "equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right and cannot be invoked solely on identical designations.

Furthermore, it cited State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti (2022), establishing that reasonable classification based on rational nexus (such as experience and nature of duties) does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal reasoned that NIHFW, being an autonomous organization, is governed by specific OMs which clarify that pay revisions under Part B are subject to functional considerations and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

Upon comparing the recruitment rules (RRs), the court found a distinct difference in educational qualifications: the NIHFW requires only three years of experience for Nursing Sisters, whereas Government Hospitals require five years.

Regarding duties, the court noted that NIHFW provides only Outpatient Department (OPD) facilities, unlike the LRS Institute or Government Hospitals, which handle indoor patients and 24-hour shifts.

The court also distinguished the CGHS parity claim by noting that CGHS staff are transferable to Government Hospitals, unlike the applicants.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicants were not "similarly situated" to their counterparts, justifying the differential Grade Pay.

The court upheld the decisions of the Ministry of Finance and the respondents dated 18.10.2011 and 16.04.2015, which declined the upgrade to Rs. 4,600/- GP.

The Original Application was dismissed for lack of merit, and no costs were awarded.