Last Updated on September 1, 2021 by Administrator
Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy in the case Union of India vs. Manoj Kumar observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation.
In the case the matter the court had to examine the claims made by Private Secretaries (Grade-II) employed in the Eastern Central Railways, for parity in pay with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service /Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service /Central Administrative Tribunal.
For this the court observed and rejected the contention that parity would automatically have to get one higher grade of Assistant and beyond that “it may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different taking in view the functional considerations and relativities across the board.”
The court held 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.
It was held that there was no question of any equivalence on that basis.
While observing in the above case that as a general statemen 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 for an officer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission and after due consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given”