SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not automatically apply only because two job-titles or job designations are similarly worded.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani explained that such equality is not based on the job designation or primary nature of work, but on several other factors like responsibilities, reliabilities, experience and confidentiality
The judge added that the person who asserts that there is equality in work has to prove it. “Person, who asserts that there is equality in work has to prove it, however, the equality is not to be based in designation or nature of work, but on several other factors like, responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentially involved, functional need and requirements commensurate with the position in hierarchy, the qualification required,” reads the Court’s March 5 order.
The Court was hearing a plea by three petitioners who were appointed as Data Operators in the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) under a recruitment notification issued in 1997. The petitioners claimed that Data Operators/ Computer Operators who were working in the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Department and the Agriculture Department, as well as in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir were paid more than they were.
Therefore, they claimed that they were also entitled to a higher grade of pay. To support their claim, they relied on the principles of equality, non-discrimination and “equal pay for equal work” ingrained in Articles 39 (d), 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Their plea was opposed by the counsel representing the Jammu and Kashmir government, who pointed out that the Data Operator’s functions or workload in different departments were different.
The government counsel added that since the petitioners had voluntarily joined the SPCB under the terms of the 1997 recruitment notification, they could not now object to the same and seek a higher pay.
After hearing both parties, the High Court observed that the petitioners have failed to show that the posts that they were appointed to and the posts with which they were seeking parity in pay were the same in terms of functions, responsibility, reliability and confidentiality.
The Court proceeded to dismiss the claims of the petitioners, terming them seemingly misconceived and legally uunsustainable Accordingly, the petition was dismissed by the High Court.
Advocate Shivani Jalali appeared on behalf of the petitioners, whereas Additional Advocate General Amit Gupta represented the Jammu and Kashmir government and the SPCB.(Bar and Bench)
