Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
KAKHETO SEMA, J
Shri H. Pangnyei K And 3 Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And 6 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 153 / 2023
Decided On : 17-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 39(d) - Equal pay for equal work - Petitioners, fixed pay work-charged labourers, sought minimum scale of pay equivalent to regular Grade-IV employees after 21 to 31 years of service - Court found no evidence of performing identical duties as regular employees - Petitioners failed to establish entitlement to equal pay. (Paras 12 , 14 , 15 )
(B) Equal Pay Principle - Burden of proof lies on the petitioners to demonstrate parity in duties and qualifications with regular employees - Court emphasized that mere assertions without substantiation do not suffice for claims of equal pay. (Paras 12 , 30 )
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as fixed pay work-charged labourers between 1991 and 2001, receiving Rs. 5250/- p.m. despite long service. They claimed entitlement to minimum pay scale of regular Grade-IV employees, citing lack of response to their representations. (Paras 3 - 7 )
Findings of Court:
Petitioners did not substantiate claims of performing identical duties as regular employees; thus, no direction for minimum pay scale could be issued. The State respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioners within 60 days. (Paras 15 )
Issues: Whether petitioners are entitled to minimum scale of pay as regular Grade-IV employees based on equal pay for equal work principle. (Paras 12 , 14 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish that they perform the same duties as regular employees, and without such evidence, claims for equal pay cannot be upheld. (Paras 12 , 30 )
Result: Writ petition disposed.
JUDGMENT :
KAKHETO SEMA, J.
Heard Ms. H. Zeliang, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the State respondents to grant the minimum scale of pay to the petitioners.
3. That the petitioner No.1 was appointed as a fixed pay work-charged labour on 21/07/1991 at PHG Phomching under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Mon Division, Mon, Nagaland. The petitioner has been continuously serving the department for over 31 years and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5250/- p.m.
4. That the petitioner No.2 was appointed as a fixed pay work-charged labour on 21/06/1992 at PHG Phomching under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Mon Division, Mon, Nagaland. The petitioner has been continuously serving the department for over 30 years and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5250/- p.m.
5. That the petitioner No.3 was appointed as a fixed pay work-charged labour on 10/05/2001 at PHG Phomching under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Mon Division, Mon, Nagaland. The petitioner has been continuously serving the department for over 21 years and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5250/- p.m.
6. That the petitioner No.4 was appointed as a fixed pay work-charged labour on 20/04/1994 at PHG Phomching under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Mon Division, Mon, Nagaland. The petitioner has been continuously serving the department for over 29 years and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5250/- p.m.
7. That the petitioners had individually submitted their representations dated 25/04/2023 & 02/06/2023, to the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Kohima, Nagaland, seeking for grant of the minimum scale of pay. However, the representations submitted by the petitioners have not evoked any response from the authorities, therefore, the present writ petition.
8. Ms. H. Zeliang, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have been diligently and sincerely discharging the duties and responsibilities as that discharged by the regular Grade-IV employees in the department and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the minimum scale of pay as that paid to the regular Grade-IV employees. The petitioners has however been discriminated by the authorities by paying only a meagre fixed pay of Rs. 5250/- p.m. despite continuously serving the department for 21 to 31 years.
9. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. -versus- Jagjit Singh & Others , reported in 2017 (1) GLT (SC) 47 and also the judgment & order dated 20/01/2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A No. 25/2022.
10. Ms. Inaholi, the learned Government Advocate on the other hand has submitted that the petitioners have not been able to substantiate that the petitioners are discharging similar duties and responsibilities as that discharged by the regular Grade- IV employees nor they possesses the same and the equivalent qualifications as that of the other regular Grade-IV employees. The learned Government Advocate submits that having failed to discharge such responsibilities, the minimum scale of pay as paid to the regular Grade-IV employees cannot be paid to the petitioners on the principles of equal pay for equal work. Making the above submission, the learned Government Advocate submits that the law laid down in Jagjit Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. In support of her submission, the learned Government Advocate has relied in the case of Steel Authority of India L
The burden of proof for equal pay claims lies with the petitioners, who must demonstrate they perform identical duties as regular employees to be entitled to the minimum pay scale.
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing identical duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing similar duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of equal pay for equal work, which applies to temporary employees and prohibits the denial of pay parity to employees performing the ....
Temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to equal pay under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Point of law: A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily-wager, he holds no post. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with t....
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' entitles temporary employees performing similar duties to receive at least the minimum pay of regular employees.
The court affirmed that casual workers are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale for their roles based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', as established in relevant Supreme Court ruli....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
