High Court affirms ‘equal pay for equal work’ for lecturers on contract

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that daily wagers, contract employees and those serving on an ad hoc basis are entitled to parity of pay with regularly appointed employees if they perform similar duties.

The ruling came as the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma upheld orders by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, among other things, directed the Chandigarh Administration to regularise the services of several lecturers appointed on a contractual basis in various government colleges of the UT. In all, the Bench dismissed a bunch of 38 petitions filed by the Chandigarh Administration challenging the CAT’s orders.

Key points in court ruling

• The Bench emphasised that the nature of the work performed by contractually appointed respondent-employees was substantive and integral to the functioning of educational institutions. The court pointed out that merely labelling a position as “contractual” did not diminish the importance of the work being done.
• The court reiterated the need for non-discrimination in employment practices, especially in public service. The Bench asserted it was the State’s duty to ensure employees performing similar duties were not unfairly treated based on their mode of appointment.
• The court directed the Chandigarh Administration to implement the CAT’s orders within a stipulated time frame, ensuring that the affected employees receive the benefits they were entitled to without undue delay.
• The court criticised the Chandigarh Administration for its reluctance to regularise the services of these lecturers, despite their long-standing contribution to the educational institutions. The Bench noted that the administration’s approach was not in line with the principles of fairness and justice.

“The Bench finds it regrettable that despite the long-standing and valuable contribution of these lecturers to the educational institutions, the Chandigarh Administration has displayed a reluctance to regularise their services. This approach is contrary to the principles of fairness and justice, as it disregards the substantive nature of their work and the need for equitable treatment,” the Bench ruled.

The court asserted the respondent-employees, including lecturers, were entitled to the minimum pay scale of the category to which they belonged – but not to additional allowances – when they were appointed against substantive posts and discharged duties comparable to those of regular employees.

The administration had contended that the tribunal did not fully appreciate the reasons that necessitated the appointment of lecturers on a contractual basis against additional vacancies. The administration argued that these appointments were made due to urgent requirements and the absence of regular posts. As such, it should not automatically lead to regularisation.

Upholding the tribunal’s decisions, the Bench made it clear that the Chandigarh Administration could not indefinitely rely on contractual appointments for work of a perennial nature. Citing the CAT orders in the matter, the Bench noted: “The tribunal has rightly observed that the petitioners-UT cannot continue to take advantage of the respondents’ services indefinitely on a contractual basis, especially when the work they perform is of a perennial nature. The respondents have a legitimate expectation of regularisation, having served for a considerable period.”

The Bench further observed that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has been well-established and should apply to these lecturers, who were performing duties comparable to those of regular employees but were being denied the corresponding pay scales and job security.

“The principle of equal pay for equal work is well-established and must apply to these lecturers who are discharging duties similar to those of regularly appointed employees. Denying them the corresponding pay scales and job security merely because they were initially appointed on a contractual basis cannot be justified,” the Bench observed