SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(SC) 68

A.P.SEN, BAHARUL ISLAM, O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
Randhir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
A.Subhashini, M.C.TALUKDAR, M.S.GANESH, R.N.Poddar

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Equal pay for equal work recognized as a constitutional goal and enforceable through Art.32, reading Art.39(d) with Arts.14 and 16 (!) (!) - Writ petition allowed to require pay scales for Delhi Police drivers to be on par with other drivers (Railway Protection Force) effective from 1 Jan 1973 (!) (!) - Pay scales must reflect identical powers, duties, and responsibilities regardless of department, rejecting department-based differentiation when identical (!) (!) - Pay Commission considerations labeled as applicable but not to justify discrimination against identical posts (!) (!) - Court emphasizes equal pay for equal work as a fundamental-leaning constitutional objective amenable to judicial remedy under Art.32 (!) (!)

What is the principle of equal pay for equal work as interpreted by the Supreme Court in this case?

What is the remedy or writ jurisdiction for enforcing equal pay for equal work under Articles 14, 16, and 32 of the Constitution?

What are the factors that justify or reject differential pay scales for drivers across different government departments when duties and responsibilities are identical?


JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:—Equal pay for equal work is not a mere demagogic slogan. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies, by the enforcement of constitutional rights. So the petitioner claims; so the petitioner asserts. Article 39 (d) of the Constitution proclaims, as a Directive Principle, the Constitutional goal of equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Articles 14 and 19 guarantee respectively the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment and Art. 32 provides the remedy for the enforcement of, the fundamental rights. So the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 and has asked us to direct the respondents to give him his due, the same as they have given others like him. True, he is the merest microbe in the mightly organism of the State, a little clog in a giant wheel. But, the glory of our Constitution is that it enables him to directly approach the highest Court in the land for redress. It is a matter of no little pride and satisfaction to us that he has done so. Hitherto the equality clauses of the Constitution, as other arti











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top