Equal pay for equal work applies to absorbed employees from merged entities performing identical duties as regulars, entitling pay scale parity, benefits, arrears despite initial lump sum irregular appointments.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties heard finally.

2. The Petitioners, who are 28 in number, have filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, espousing the principle of equal pay for equal work. At the outset, the prayers as made in the Petition are required to be noted, which read thus:-

“a. this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to pay Salary to the Petitioners as per the regular pay scale along with all other monetary benefits, allowances and arrears as per regular pay scale.

b. this Hon'ble Court to direct the Respondents to grant all the benefits of Seventh Pay Commission to the Petitioners.

c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to decide the proposal for grant of regular pay scale to the Petitioners in a time bound manner.”

3. From the pleadings on record, it appears to be not in dispute that Respondent No.1 Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation (for short “Municipal Corporation”) was formed on 3^rd July 2009 pursuant to the merger of four Municipal Councils and 53 Gram Panchayat/Villages. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were initially the employees of the Gram Panchayat appointed on various posts (Safai Kamgar, Clerk, Peon) which came to be merged with the Municipal Corporation constituted by the State Government by exercising the powers under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act 1949 with effect from 3^rd July 2009.

4. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the merger of the Gram Panchayats, the Petitioners continued in employment with the Municipal Corporation. However, the grievance of the Petitioners is that they have been denied the revised pay scale, and are being paid wages which are not at par with those granted to the regular employees of the Municipal Corporation. The Petitioners have several grievances in that regard. In such context, our attention is drawn to the representation dated 24th April 2012, as also the RTI application dated 27th August 2015, which were submitted by the Petitioners seeking information regarding the reasons for not granting to the Petitioners the pay parity. It also appears that in the General Body Meeting of the Municipal Corporation held on 15^th September 2012, cognizance was taken of the demand of the Petitioners for increasing the wages by granting parity. However, although a decision on the Petitioners’ proposal was taken, no benefit on parity in the pay-scales and wages with that of the regular employees was granted to the Petitioners.

5. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are discharging duties similar to the other regular employees of the Municipal Corporation, who are paid salaries as per the prescribed pay scale of the respective post/grade. However, the Petitioners are being discriminated and not paid salaries as per the regular pay scale and are only being paid minimum wages.

6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others , (2017) 1 SCC 148 enunciating the principle of “equal pay for equal work” to hold that there cannot be any discrimination between employees performing similar duties, including those employed on ad-hoc bas