The principle of equal pay for equal work requires proof of equivalent job functions; without adequate demonstration of such equality, claims for pay parity fail.

JUDGMENT :

BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.

1. The matter is appearing in the list under the heading "For Orders."

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners seek for removal of discrepancies in the scale of pay and in grade pay of the employees of three-tier Panchayat Raj on the same footing considering the essential eligibility criteria for recruitment to the respective posts.

3. The petitioners contend that they were appointed to the post of "Sahayak" in different Gram Panchayats for the purpose of securing additional assistance in the function of the Gram Panchayat in accounts and other records, in recording resolutions of meetings including those of Gram Sansads and Gram Sabha and follow-up actions thereon and any other works that may be assigned by the Gram Panchayat, in the pay scale of Rs.3150-80-3390-90-4380-100-5680 plus usual allowances as admissible. With the amendments of Rules in 2007 and 2008, the eligibility for recruitment to the post of "Sahayak" Accounts Clerk, Clerk-cum-Typist, Typist, Work Assistant, Assistant Cashier, Telephone-cum- Receptionist, Lower Division Assistant etc. are more or less the same. But surprisingly the scale of pay and grade pay are different. Hence this writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking equal pay for equal work.

4. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners seek parity with Accounts Clerk. The eligibility criteria for recruitment to the post of "Sahayak" and Accounts Clerk are almost identical. However, there is a difference in the pay structure for both the posts. Such difference violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Referring to Rule 55D of the West Bengal Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Administration) Rules, 2004 and Rule 85H of the West Bengal Panchayat (Panchayat Samiti Administration) Rules, 2008, he submits that the duties of a "Sahayak" and the Accounts Clerk are almost the same. Due to discriminative policy of the Government, the petitioners being "Sahayak" discharging similar functions as Accounts Clerks are getting less salary. Principles of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Though such principles is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right but it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principles of State Policy. To vast majority of people the equality clauses under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution would mean nothing, if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To buttress his contention, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and others , AIR 1982 SC 879 . Such doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" has also been reiterated in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Charanjit Singh and others , (2006) 9 SCC 321. He seeks for appropriate direction upon the State authorities to remove such discrepancies in the pay scale of different posts in the three-tier Panchayat Raj and extend the benefit of the same scale to the petitioners, who are discharging their functions as Sahayaks, in parity with the scale of the Accounts Clerks in different panchayats.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate representing the State- respondents submits that in order to claim equal pay for equal work the petitioners have to demonstrate that they are discharging equal functions. Upon analytical comparison of dutie