Gauhati High Court Denies Equal Pay Claim for Casual Labourers Citing State's Wage Revisions

Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh - The Gauhati High Court, in a significant judgment dated June 11, 2025, has ruled that casual labourers are not entitled to relief under the principle of "equal pay for equal work" if their periodically revised monthly wages are akin to, or even higher than, the minimum pay scale of regular employees in comparable posts. Justice Kardak Ete disposed of two writ petitions filed by over a hundred casual labourers, while directing the State to ensure implementation of the latest wage enhancement order.

The court heard two analogous writ petitions: WP(C) No. 589/2024, filed by Smti Macheri Mongkhia and 44 others serving in the Department of Power, and WP(C) No. 590/2024, by Gomose Kamsa and 72 others in the Department of Public Health Engineering & Water Supply (PHE & WS), Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Case Background: The Plea for Parity

The petitioners, a total of 118 casual labourers, have been serving in various capacities such as Operator, Lineman, Peon, Fitter, Driver, and Computer Operator, among others. Their engagement dates back to periods ranging from 1986 to 2024. They approached the High Court seeking a direction for the respondent authorities to provide them salary, wages, and other service benefits on par with regular employees holding similar posts, invoking the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal work."

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Contentions: The counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Koyang , argued that many labourers have served for over 30 years, performing duties and responsibilities identical to their regular counterparts. He highlighted that their initial monthly salary of Rs. 12,000 was insufficient to meet basic needs, including family maintenance, children's education, and essential bills, leading to significant hardship. This disparity, he contended, was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006) and State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (2017), to assert that daily wage earners and casual workers are entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay scale of regular employees in the same cadre.

State Respondents' Defence: Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, and Mr. L. Perme , learned Standing Counsel for the Power Department, countered that the quality, quantity, and responsibilities of work performed by the casual petitioners and regular employees were distinct. They emphasized that the State Government regularly revises the minimum wages for casual labourers and provides benefits through welfare schemes. Crucially, the respondents referred to an Order dated March 19, 2025, issued by the Commissioner (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, which significantly enhanced the minimum wages for various categories of unskilled and skilled contingent employees/casual workers, effective from April 1, 2025. They argued that, with this revision, the petitioners were receiving wages higher than the minimum pay scale of regular employees in comparable grades.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Kardak Ete , after considering the submissions and perusing the records, noted that the State Government has indeed been revising the wages of casual labourers from time to time. The Court took particular note of the General Arunachal Service, Group-C (Ministerial) Multi-Tasking Staff Common Recruitment Rules, 2019, which stipulates a pay scale of Rs. 18,000-56,900 for posts like Peon, Chowkidar, etc., meaning the minimum pay for such regular posts is Rs. 18,000.

The Court then examined the State Government's wage revision order of March 19, 2025. This order detailed enhancements such as: - Unskilled (0-5 years service): from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per month. - Skilled (0-5 years service): from Rs. 13,000/- to Rs. 19,000/- per month. - For those with over 25 years of service, wages were revised to Rs. 30,000/- (unskilled) and Rs. 31,000/- (skilled) per month.

The Court observed: > "The above enhancement indicates that the State Government has although not particularly mentioned the minimum pay scale at the lowest grade in the regular pay scale extended to the regular employees holding the same post, it is akin rather higher than the minimum pay scale granted to the lowest grade in the regular pay scale to regular employees holding the same post inasmuch as the minimum pay scale of the regular employees holding the same post is Rs. 18000/-." (Para 16)

While acknowledging the Supreme Court's stance in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post, the High Court found the present case distinguishable due to the State's proactive wage revisions.

The Verdict

The Court concluded that the petitioners were already being provided with monthly wages that were not only akin to but, in some cases, higher than the minimum pay scale of regular employees in similar posts. In its dispositive paragraph, the Court stated: > "In the present case, having considered the matters in its entirety, it is noticed that the petitioners are provided with the monthly wages akin to the minimum pay scale provided to the regular employees holding the same post and in fact, higher than the minimum pay scale. Thus, this Court finds difficulty in granting relief for payment of minimum pay scale and other service benefits as claimed by the petitioners." (Para 18)

Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of, with the Court declining to grant the specific relief of pay parity as claimed. However, it directed that if any petitioners were not yet receiving the enhanced monthly wages as per the Government Order dated March 19, 2025, such payments should be made to them. Costs were made easy, meaning each party will bear its own expenses.

This judgment underscores that while the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is a cornerstone of service jurisprudence, its application can be nuanced by governmental actions such as periodic and substantial wage revisions for casual and temporary employees.