INDIA
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

1982

Randhir Singh v. Union of India

(1982) 1 SCC 618

Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal derivable from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) read together.

Read Analysis
1996

State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh

(1996) 11 SCC 77

Contractual employee retained beyond tenure cannot be terminated without following principles of natural justice.

Read Analysis
2002

B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab

(2002) 1 SCC 187

Settled seniority cannot be disturbed retrospectively. Reopening seniority after long gap causes grave prejudice.

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