Equal pay requires proof of wholesale identity between posts, not merely similar duties or designations.

The petitioner was appointed in 2013 as “Warden-cum-Estate Incharge” at the Regional Panchayat and Rural Development Training Centre, Kurud, in the pay scale of Rs. 5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800, pursuant to a sanctioned set-up prescribing the post of “Warden-cum-Estate Officer” in a lower scale.

He contended that his duties, including additional responsibilities as Training In-charge and Faculty, were comparable to those performed by Hostel Superintendents in the SC and ST Development Department and Estate Officers in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board and Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukharji International Institute of Information Technology, who received the pay scale of Rs. 15,600–39,100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600.

On his representation, the State corrected his designation to “Warden-cum-Estate Officer” but did not revise his pay scale.

His subsequent representation seeking pay parity was rejected on 22 June 2019, leading to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 15,600–39,100 with Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600 on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” by comparison with Hostel Superintendents and Estate Officers in other departments or institutions.

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s representation by order dated 22 June 2019 was arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

“Equal pay for equal work” is a constitutional goal under Article 39(d), read with Articles 14 and 16, rather than an independently enforceable fundamental right; however, the principle may apply where there is complete and wholesale identity between the posts.

Mere similarity in designation, nature, or volume of work is insufficient. Relevant factors include the source and mode of recruitment, qualifications, nature and quality of work, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional requirements, hierarchy, promotional avenues, territorial or administrative charge, and service conditions.

Relying on State of M.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635; SAIL v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122; Punjab SEB v. Thana Singh, (2019) 4 SCC 113; and Punjab State Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Bindal, (2019) 3 SCC 547, the Court reiterated that the burden lies on the employee claiming parity and that equation of posts and fixation of pay are primarily matters for the executive and expert bodies.

Judicial interference is justified only where the differentiation is arbitrary, irrational, or based on extraneous considerations.

The petitioner established only that his designation had been corrected and that certain duties were similar to those attached to posts in other establishments.

He did not produce material demonstrating identity in recruitment method, qualifications, cadre structure, hierarchy, promotional avenues, duties, responsibilities, functional requirements, or other service conditions.

The posts relied upon belonged to different departments or institutions governed by distinct recruitment rules and service structures.

The Court therefore found that the correction of nomenclature did not confer entitlement to the higher pay scale and that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving wholesale identity between the posts.

In the absence of proof of arbitrary or irrational discrimination, the Court declined to interfere with the executive determination of pay.

The order dated 22 June 2019 rejecting his representation was upheld as lawful and non-arbitrary.

The writ petition was dismissed as meritless, with the parties left to bear their own costs.