Equal pay for equal work must consider seniority, qualifications, and nature of work, establishing that discrimination against meritorious employees is unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J. The issue raised in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner, who joined Delhi High Court as Junior Judicial Assistant, prior to Smt. Usha Rawat and was, thereafter, appointed as Reader also prior to Smt. Usha Rawat is entitled to stepping up of pay equal to that of Smt. Usha Rawat, who from the date of her joining as a Reader is getting a higher pay than that of Petitioner.

2. The petitioner, prior to filing the present writ petition had given representations to the Delhi High Court on 18.03.2014 and 20.02.2015. The rejection of those representations by the Delhi High Court has led to filing of the present writ petition.

Facts

3. The relevant facts as admitted by the Delhi High Court are that the petitioner joined as Junior Judicial Assistant (hereinafter referred to as "JJA") on 27.02.2001 and Smt. Usha Rawat joined as JJA on 01.06.2001. Both the petitioner and Smt. Usha Rawat gave Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as "LDCE") in the year 2007, in which the petitioner was successful and was appointed as a Reader, with effect from 09.10.2007. Smt. Usha Rawat was promoted as Judicial Assistant on 12.11.2007 by seniority and, thereafter, qualified in LDCE in the year 2008 and was appointed as Reader with effect from 20.12.2008. The pay drawn by both the petitioner and Smt. Usha Rawat in the year 2001 was same when they joined as JJA. The petitioner, however, was senior having joined prior to Smt. Usha Rawat.In the year 2007, the petitioner was drawing a pay of Rs.13,950/- (Band pay) plus Rs.4,800/- (Grade Pay), as a Reader whereas Smt. Usha Rawatwas drawing a lesser pay being a JJA. However, as on 20.12.2008, when Smt. Usha Rawat was appointed as a Reader, the petitioner was drawing a lesser salary than Smt. Usha Rawat. The chart depicting date of appointment/promotion as well as the pay drawn by the petitioner and Smt. Usha Rawat is reproduced below for ease of reference:

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner even though, being not only appointed prior to Smt. Usha Rawat, but also promoted, being more meritorious, as a Reader prior to Smt. Usha Rawat is still getting a lesser pay than her, which is arbitrary and discriminatory.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Adarsh Kumar Sharma v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh through its Registrar General in CWP No. 4992 of 2012; Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. in CWP No. 1684-CAT of 2007; Tejbir Singh Dagar v. Union of India, in W.P. (C) No. 7840/2012, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 45; T.S. Dagar v. UOI, in W.P.(C) No. 5867/2003, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 398, to contend that the schemes are formulated from time to time by various departments for the benefit of the employees and cannot be applied to the prejudice of the meritorious and hardworking employees who had qualified in the LDCE and climbed the ladder of success. It