Snehal Upadhyay –

Published on: September 1, 2021, at 17:17 IST

The Supreme Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be merely applied based on the designation.

The Court was hearing the claim made by the Private Secretaries which were employed in the Eastern Central Railways for getting equally paid with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service, Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service and Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Court while interpreting the Central sixth pay commission observed that the dissimilarity between the Secretariat and the field offices was an issue of which the Commission had taken note of itself while making the recommendations.

The Courtobserved that “We are fortified in the view we are seeking to adopt in interpreting the aforesaid paragraphs of the Pay Commission by the observations in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, where it was opined that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. While dealing with the 5th Pay Commission recommendations with respect to functional requirements, it was held that there was no question of any equivalence on that basis. The said case dealt with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. While observing that as a general statement it was correct to state that the basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or an officer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given.”

Click here to read/download the Order

Also Read:Landmark Judgments on Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment under Article 16