‘EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK’ : High Court Kohima Bench upholds principle

An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities

Morung Express News
Kohima | May 8

The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench, once again, has upheld the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work,’ while directing the State respondents to pay a work-charged labourer in par “with the scale-of-pay of people in the same Grade/category discharging the same responsibility.”

Hearing a writ petition on May 5, Justice Songkhupchung Serto further directed the State respondents to pay the arrears of the differential amount from January 21, 2019, the date on which the W/C labourer (the petitioner) made a representation to the concerned department requesting for payment of his monthly pay at least at scale-of-pay.

The Government of Nagaland, is represented by the Chief Secretary; Finance Commissioner; Commissioner and Secretary/Secretary Department of Public Health Engineering Department (PHED); and the Chief Engineer PHED.

On March 16 this year, the Bench had invoked the same principle while directing the Nagaland State Government to pay salaries to a batch of teachers employed under the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) in parity with their counterparts.

Background of the Case
As per the Court’s order, the petitioner was appointed as a W/C Labourer on contingency basis, with a monthly fixed pay of Rs 540 on September 9, 1993 by the Sub Divisional Office (SDO), PHED, under (then) the Niuland Sub-division.

By an order issued by the same office on July 19, 1994, he was later promoted to W/C ‘Khalasi’ with Scale-of-pay.

However, by another order issued by the Additional Chief Engineer, PHED, Government of Nagaland on October 16, 2010, he was reverted back to W/C Labourer with the same pay he was receiving earlier. The petitioner continued to work in the same post and in course of time his fixed pay was enhanced to Rs 3,450 per month.

Being aggrieved by the fact that he continues to be paid with fixed pay in spite of discharging the same duties as people who are regularly appointed, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Government of Nagaland on January 21, 2019 “requesting for payment of his monthly pay at least at scale-of-pay.”

Without any positive response on his representation, the petitioner approached the Court seeking for appropriate direction.

During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was discharging the same duties as that of the regular employees of the same grade and has been serving for more than 28 years and 8 months.

Accordingly, the counsel argued that the petitioner is entitled to be ‘paid at least with the scale-of-pay as given to other similarly situated persons,’ further augmenting it with the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh (2017).

The Apex Court, among others, had observed that “it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state.”

It further held that such action demeans and strikes at the very foundation of human dignity, adding that “anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily” but to “provide food and shelter” to their families at the cost of self-respect and dignity, self-worth, and integrity.

“Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position,” it added, terming the action as “oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”

“There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post,” the Apex Court then added.

The Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents contended that ‘petitioner is not entitled to scale-of-pay as prayed for.’

Courts observations
After going through the submissions, Justice Serto noted that petitioner has been serving as W/C Labourer since September 1993 starting with a meager pay of Rs 540 per month, later enhanced to Rs 3,450 per month.

“It is not difficult to imagine how difficult it must be to manage life with a sum of just Rs 3450/-p.m., especially in this age of high inflation. It is not possible to maintain a decent life with that kind of pay,” he noted, adding: “Right to life enshrined in our Constitution is not mere existence but life with dignity.”

The judge further observed that there is no dispute to the claim of the petitioner that he had been discharging the same duties as that of regular employees and he has been continuing in service over 28 years.

Accordingly, he stated that the claim of the petitioner that he should be paid at least with scale-of pay of the people who are in the same grade discharging the same duties, is not asking for too much.

Further, the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ as elaborated in the SC’s judgment referred to by the counsel of the petitioner is squarely applicable in his case, Justice Serto affirmed.

He further noted that the affidavit in-oppositions filed of the State respondents only opposed the regularisation of the service of the petitioner, not the demand for scale-of-pay and payment of arrears.

“In view of what has been stated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to scale-of-pay, and the arrears thereof from the date the representation was submitted, i.e., 20.01.2019,” Justice Serto, stated while disposing off the petition and issuing the directives to the State respondents.

Source: morungexpress.com/equal-pay-for-equal-work-high-court-kohima-bench-upholds-principle