IMPORTANT POINT
"Equal pay for equal work" is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and whole sale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and other group who have already earned such pay scale.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. The State of Haryana is in appeal against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby the respondents herein were directed to be paid the minimum pay in the scale of pay applicable to the regular employees.

3. Factual position so far as relevant for determination of the controversy needs to be noted in brief.

The thirty five respondents were appointed at different points of time as helpers on daily wages in the Haryana Roadways. They filed writ petition claiming that they were entitled to regularization in view of service rendered for long period and/or that they were to be paid the same salary as paid to regular employees since the nature of work done by them was similar. In other words for the second relief claimed principle of "equal pay for equal work" was pressed into service. They asserted to be educationally qualified for the post. The appellants disputed the claim of the respondents that they were educationally qualified for appointment to the post of helper and also took the stand that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was factually and legally not applicable to their case. The High Court allowed the writ petition, inter alia, with the following observations :

"In this view of the matter, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief, but again not the regular pay scale which their regular counter parts are receiving. The petitioners would be entitled to minimum of the pay scale with dearness allowance alone."

4. The High Court was of the view the since the claims were not pressed till 2000 and the respondents filed the writ petition without serving any notice of demand upon the employer, they would be entitled to get the relief only w.e.f. 1.4.2000 i.e. two months later to the institution of the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the directions given by the High Court are contrary to the position of law enunciated by this Court in several cases. Strong reliance was placed on State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jasmer Singh & Ors. 1996 (11) SCC 77). Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-employees submitted that there being no dispute to the fact that the concerned employees have worked for a considerable length of time, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is clearly applicable and the High Court s direction is in order.

6. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same organization. In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1988(3) SCC 91), this Court explained the principle of "equal pay for equal work" by holding that differentiation in pay scales among government servants holding the same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less - it varies from nature and culture of employment. It was further observed that judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the posts and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court.

7. In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989(1) SCC 121), it was pointed out that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. In Harbans Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1989(4) SCC 459) it was held that a mere nomenclature designating a person as a carpenter or a craftsman was not enough to come to a conclusion that he w