Unequal wages for identical work breach Articles 14 and 21; HC directs pay parity appointment date

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that paying a lower wage for work identical to that of regular employees amounts to a “profound breach” of constitutional obligations. The assertion came as Justice Harpreet Singh Brar made it clear that the State could not create a “subordinate, disadvantaged class” of workers performing identical duties.

“It is incumbent upon the State to actively uphold the dignity of labour by curbing exploitative wage practices and thereby, provide the social and economic justice pledged by the Preamble. Any failure in this regard is not merely an administrative lapse but a profound breach of the State’s duty to defend and sustain the basic tenets of fairness, dignity and equality,” Justice Brar asserted.

The ruling came on a petition filed by an employee through counsel Gurnoor Singh Sethi. The court observed that the petitioner had worked full-time against a regular vacancy on duties “qualitatively and quantitatively” identical to regular Accounts Assistants. Yet, he continued to receive fixed wages. Justice Brar also took note of the fact that respondent – Haryana Urban Development Authority– was unable to indicate any distinction in duties or qualifications.

Rejecting the State’s plea that the petitioner had accepted the terms of engagement, Justice Brar observed the availability of vacancies, requisite qualifications and performance of identical work were established.

Perpetuating differential pay structures would amount to forced submission induced by financial helplessness.

“Allowing a State employer to pay unequal wages for identical work would essentially amount to validating whimsical discrimination which would force vulnerable workers into involuntary submission, compelling them to choose between survival and self-respect. Such affront to human dignity is unacceptable being in direct violation of Articles 14 and 21. For any classification to be acceptable, an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to its object must be clearly made out. In absence of the same, such conduct is plainly exploitative, which is especially deplorable in a welfare State like ours,” Justice Brar asserted.

The court added that the doctrine of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ was deeply rooted in the constitutional philosophy. Article 39(d) formed a part of Directive Principles of State Policy. But the doctrine had been elevated into an enforceable constitutional right by means of Article 14 and 16, aided by the constitutional promise of social justice.

Making it clear that arbitrariness could not infiltrate public employment, Justice Brar added: “The values and ethics inherent in the Constitution prima facie proscribe creation of a subordinate, disadvantaged class of employees who, despite performing identical duties under similar conditions, are denied commensurate remuneration.”

Justice Harpreet added the status of employment — whether contractual, ad hoc or daily wage — was irrelevant once interchangeability of duties was established. “The two sets of employees cannot be paid different wages regardless of whether they are ad-hoc, daily wage, temporary, contractual, or casual employees.”

Allowing the petition, Justice Brar directed the respondent to grant the minimum of regular pay scale of Accounts Assistant’s post to the petitioner, along with all consequential benefits, including arrears, from the date of his appointment, within three months.