Teachers seek equal pay for equal work

Naina Mishra

Tribune News Service

LUDHIANA, FEBRUARY 21

The Elementary Government Teachers’ Union in Ludhiana is irked over the attitude of the Punjab Government for ignoring their demands time and again.

Their major demands from the Punjab Government are ‘equal pay for equal work’, de-reserving the vacant posts and implementation of the RTE Act.

Teachers contend that by denying equal pay, the government is infringing their right to live life with dignity.

Himanshu, meet pradhan, of the union said, “The Punjab government has been ignoring our demands persistently. When Haryana can adopt SC’s ruling ‘equal work for equal pay’, then why cannot Punjab? Why is Punjab reluctant in adopting the judgment? We are constantly being denied from our basic rights.”

According to the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 Section 7 (2): If in public interest it is deemed necessary to fill up any reserved vacancy (Scheduled class or Backward class), the appointing authority shall refer the vacancy to the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes for de-reservation.

Kamal Thakur, Senior President of TET 6505 Union said, “There are 700 posts vacant for Schedule cast as against 160 jobless backward class candidates. We want the government to de-reserve the SC posts and convert them to the BC class in order to fill up vacancies. The 2006 act clearly states the provision of de-reserving in case of unfilled posts. By derserving, the posts will be subjected to open merit, wherein the 160 posts will be filled accordingly as all other categories are already filled.”

Equal pay for equal work: SC order

Supreme Court judges Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice SA Bobde in State of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh case held that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, which meant equal pay for everyone irrespective of sex, was deducible from the Preamble and Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, was held to be applicable to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification, though both sets of employees (engaged on temporary and regular basis, respectively) performed identical duties and responsibilities