Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 353

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Deepak Roshan, J
Bipta Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 4922 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Indrajit Sinha, Arpan Mishra
For the Respondents: Ashok Kumar

The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is a constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16. Employees performing identical duties and responsibilities, regardless of their contractual or temporary status, are entitled to pay parity with similarly situated employees to prevent exploitative and discriminatory wage disparities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) - Service Law - Equal pay for equal work - Doctrine of equality - Petitioner and a similarly situated employee appointed through same advertisement, qualification, and selection process, yet petitioner granted lower grade pay - Denial of equal pay for equal work to temporary, contractual, or ad-hoc employees, when work, duties, and responsibilities are identical to those of regular employees, violates the constitutional guarantee of equality - Principle of equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal of a socialistic state and is legally binding on all courts. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a contractual employee, sought a directive for the grant of a specific grade pay and promotion to be on par with a similarly situated employee who was appointed through the same recruitment process. Both employees possessed the same qualifications, were selected via the same process, and performed identical duties. Despite this, the petitioner was receiving a lower grade pay, leading to a claim for pay parity based on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Findings of Court:
The court found that both employees were appointed through the same advertisement and selection process, held similar qualifications, and performed the same typing and data entry duties. Official records confirmed that both employees were, at various times, entitled to the same grade pay. The court held that denying the higher grade pay to the petitioner while granting it to another performing identical duties constitutes discriminatory practice and is contrary to constitutional mandates.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay parity with a similarly situated employee based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and whether the denial of equal grade pay violates constitutional provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is a fundamental right implicit in Articles 14 and 16, ensuring that employees engaged in the same duties and responsibilities, regardless of the nature of their appointment, must receive parity in wages. Subjecting similarly situated employees to arbitrary pay differences without a rational basis is violative of the equality clause.

Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to fix the grade pay and release arrears within the stipulated timeframe.

Table of Content
1. factual background of contractual appointment and selection process at jharkhand bhawan. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. contentions regarding entitlement to grade pay parity with similarly situated employees. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. findings of fact: petitioner performed similar duties as other personnel receiving higher pay. (Para 23 , 24)
4. application of the principle of equal pay for equal work under articles 14 and 16. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. final direction to grant equivalent grade pay and release arrears. (Para 29)

C.A.V. ON: 06/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:16/02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- and upgrade the post of the petitioner from Lower Division Clerk to Upper Division Clerk with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant benefits of Grade Pay and substantive post as granted to the similarly situated employee namely Miss Manisha who was working in the office of the Resident Commissioner, Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of Jharkhand.

Brief Facts:-

3. On creation of the State of Jharkhand on 15.11.2000, a camp Office of the Chief Minister was established at New Delhi. Separate offices of the Resident Commissioner and the Chief Executive Officer were also established at Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi, to facilitate liaison between the State Government and the Central Government and to provide necessary infrastructure and facilities to the Governor, Chief Minister and other officers visiting Delhi for attending official meetings.

4. By a Resolution dated 28.07.2001, fourteen posts for the office of the Resident Commissioner, twenty-nine posts for Chief Executive Officer’s Office and nine posts for the Camp Office of the Chief Minister were created. The Resolution was also published in the Extra-Ordinary Gazette. The posts were sanctioned and has been permanent. After sanctioned of the said posts, no regular appointment was made, but the appointments were made on contractual basis, though against the sanctioned vacant posts.

5. An Advertisement dated 02.02.2005 was published in the English Daily Newspaper namely “Hindustan Times” and Hindi Daily Newspaper “Navbharat Times” (New Delhi Edition) the essential requirement for the posts which was advertised for contractual basis was English and Hindi Stenographer having word processing skills on a monthly consolidated remuneration of Rs. 5,000/-. The candidates shortlisted would be invited for Test/Interview. Pursuant to the Advertisement published on 02.02.2005, the petitioner has made an application and was issued a Call Letter dated 30.04.2005 by the Chief Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of Jharkhand.

6. The petitioner was requested to appear for Skill Test on 15.05.2005 in the office of the Resident Commissioner, Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of Jharkhand.

7. The Selection Committee requested the Director, Institute of Secretariat Training and Management, New Delhi (ISTM) to conduct the Skill Test for the applicants who had responded to the Advertisement. The Director, ISTM consented to conduct the Skill Test on 15.05.2005 at Jharkhand Bhawan and accordingly deputed Sri H. Govind, Assistant Director to conduct the Skill Test. The Skill Test comprising of the test of Hindi/English Typewriting @ 25 (Hindi)/ 30 (English) word per minute over the computer and the test of Hindi/ English Stenography comprising shorthand test @ 80 word per minute and subsequent transcription over the computer took place in Jharkhand Bhawan on 15.05.2005. For the Skill Test out of 11 applicants only the following 5 attended: -

i. Miss. Manisha

ii. Ms. Indu Pandey

iii. Mr. P. G. Anurag

iv. Mr. Bipta Oraon ( Petitioner)

v. Mr. Amit Kumar

8. The Assistant Director, ISTM informed that he would require a co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 353

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDDeepak Roshan, JBipta Oraon – AppellantVersusState Of Jharkhand – RespondentW.P.(S) No. 4922 of 2019

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Deepak Roshan, J
Bipta Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 4922 of 2019