Identical duties and responsibilities mandate pay parity under the constitutional doctrine of equal pay for equal work.

The applicant was appointed as a Workshop Instructor in the Polytechnic sector of the J Skill Development Department in 2018, drawing a pay scale of Rs. 9300–34800 with Grade Pay (GP) 4200 (Pay Level 6)

He sought parity with Workshop Instructors in the ITI sector and certain others in the Polytechnic sector who receive GP 4280 (Pay Level 6E) based on Government Order No. 111-Edu(Tech.) of 2007

The Director of the department had recommended the applicant’s case for upgradation in 2021

Following a previous Tribunal direction in O.A. No. 658/2022, the respondents issued the impugned Government Order No. 91-JK(DSD) of 2022, rejecting the claim on the grounds that Polytechnic and ITI sectors are governed by different recruitment rules (SRO-145 of 2002) with distinct qualifications

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to parity in pay scale with Workshop Instructors in the ITI sector and similarly placed instructors in the Polytechnic sector

2. Whether the distinction in recruitment rules and qualifications justifies a lower pay scale despite the performance of identical duties and responsibilities

The court primarily applied the constitutional doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" derived from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which requires that any pay disparity between employees performing similar duties under the same employer must be justified on a rational basis

It also referenced the precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu Kashmir in Om Parkash Sabarwal and Ors. v. State of JK and Ors. (SWP No. 392/1982), which recognized parity between Workshop Instructors of the Polytechnic and ITI sectors

The Tribunal reasoned that while the respondents attempted to distinguish the posts based on the JK Technical Education (Subordinate) Recruitment Rules, 2002, such technical distinctions lose significance when incumbents discharge substantially similar duties and responsibilities

The court observed that the respondents failed to demonstrate a rational basis for the disparity, especially since other similarly situated Workshop Instructors in the same department had already been granted the higher pay scale (Level 6E) via judicial directions

The Tribunal found the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 to be "non-speaking" and reflective of a "non-application of mind," as it ignored the Director's 2021 recommendations and failed to address the actual nature of the duties performed

It held that denying equal pay to the applicant amounted to hostile discrimination in violation of the Constitution

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant the pay scale applicable to Workshop Instructors in the ITI sector (Level 6E) and release all consequential benefits within eight weeks

No order was made as to costs