Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2799
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Battu Devanand, J.
Chinnadurai - Petitioner
Versus
The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Finance Department and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.26596 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.22556 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G.Karthik
For the Respondent: Mr.D.Sachi Kumar Additional Government Pleader
The principle of equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and discriminatory pay structures are unconstitutional.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Equal pay for equal work - Writ petition challenging the order denying regular time scale of pay to a Sanitary Worker/Sweeper - Court held that the petitioner, performing similar duties as others in the Education Department, is entitled to the same pay scale - The impugned order was set aside, and directions were issued for placement in the regular time scale of pay. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Discrimination - The principle of equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right, and discriminatory pay structures violate this principle. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Sanitary Worker/Sweeper in a Government College Students Hostel, sought to be placed in a regular time scale of pay, which was denied based on his employment in a hostel rather than a school. The court found this distinction unjustified.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner should be treated equally with other sweepers in the Education Department and directed the respondents to revise the pay scale accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, performing the same work as sweepers in schools, should receive equal pay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the principle of equal pay for equal work is enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and cannot be undermined by arbitrary distinctions.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER :
Battu Devanand, J.
The present Writ Petition has been challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent, dated 16.05.2024 and consequently directing the respondents to revise the scale of pay and to grant regular time scale of pay in the cadre of Sanitary Worker/Sweeper on par with the existing Sanitary worker/Sweeper who are working in the School Education Department, Police Department, Medical Department, Judicial Department.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as Sanitary Worker/Sweeper in Government College Students Hostel in Cantonment, Thiruchirapalli District. The petitioner's service is not in dispute as his service has already been regularised. However, he is getting only special time scale of pay, the petitioner wanted to be placed in regular time scale of pay, his request was rejected by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the order impugned in this writ petition does not call for any interference. The learned Additional Government Pleader further contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief on the ground that he is working in the hostel. In the earlier case, the sweepers working in the schools has been considered. Accordingly, he submit that the common order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)Nos.22370 and 22392 of 2021, dated 17.11.2022 is not applicable to the petitioner.
4. This Court carefully perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions of the respective counsels. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res-integra.
5. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that the petitioner is working in the school hostel as such he is not entitled. But in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is also doing the same work as sweeper in the college students hostel, like the sweepers working in the schools. Hence, he cannot be treated differently. In our considered view, the common order passed by this Court stated supra relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the present case. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein under:
“5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. In fact, Scavengers working in the education department sought similar relief and filed W.P.(MD)No. 17663 of 2014. The said writ petition was allowed by me on 25.01.2018 in the following terms:-
“8. This Court is of the view that the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India is too sacred to be defeated by invoking the principle of estoppel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in decision reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 – State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others held that even temporary employees will be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale as extended to the regular employees holding the same post. The members of the petitioner's Association are discharging the duty of Scavengers in the School Education Department but other Scavengers working in the very same department have been placed in the higher time scale of pay. This is patently discriminatory. When two employees are doing the same work, both will have to be paid the very same salary. The question of waiver will not arise in these cases. Fundamental rights cannot be waived. It has held that the right of equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India states that the State shall direct its policy towards securing that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though this directive principle of State policy is more in the context of gender equity, the philosophy behind it can be applied to uphold the general principle of equal pay for equal work. This Court considering a similar i
