Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
Citation(2003) 2 SCC 632
CourtSupreme Court of India
Date6 January 2003
Year2003
BenchS. Rajendra Babu, G.P. Mathur JJ.
Acts/ArticlesArticle 14, Article 16, Article 39(d)
CategoryConstitutional Law, Service & Employment Law

Key Principle Established

Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal but not an absolute right. Difference in pay scales can be justified by difference in qualifications, responsibilities, and experience.

Brief Facts

Employees performing similar work but in different pay scales sought equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d).

Ratio Decidendi

The Court clarified the scope of equal pay for equal work:

  • Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal (Article 39(d)) but not an enforceable fundamental right in absolute terms
  • Pay differentials can be justified by different qualifications, experience, responsibilities, and methods of recruitment
  • The principle applies when persons doing identical work in the same establishment are paid differently without rational basis
  • Classification based on reasonable criteria does not violate Article 14

Impact & Significance

This judgment provides the framework for equal pay claims and is cited in disputes involving contractual employees seeking parity with regular employees performing same duties.

Tags & Related Topics

Constitutional Law Service & Employment Law Article 14 Article 16 Article 39(d)
← Previous Judgment Registrar General, High Court of Madras v. R. Perachi
Next Judgment → State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa

Related Judgments

2007

Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Residents Association

(2007) 8 SCC 669

Municipal bodies have a statutory duty to provide basic civic services. Failure to provide water supply, sanitation, and roads is…

Read Analysis
2011

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana

(2011) 5 SCC 258

Daily-wage workers in Haryana government who have completed 240 days of continuous service cannot be terminated without compliance with Section…

Read Analysis
2015

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih

(2015) 4 SCC 334

Government cannot recover excess payments from employees where: (a) payment was not due to employee's misrepresentation, (b) employee had no…

Read Analysis

Disclaimer

This judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).

Need Case Law Research or Legal Representation?

22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.

Call: +919915442266 WhatsApp

Need Legal Assistance?

Contact Advocate Ravinder Singh Dhull for expert legal guidance on your matter.