Equal Pay For Equal Work Not An Abstract Principle, Cannot Be Applied Mechanically: SC

The Supreme Court has said the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract principle and cannot be applied mechanically based solely on functional similarity. It held that Article 14 of the Constitution permits reasonable classification for pay differentiation based on factors such as service experience, mode of recruitment and educational qualifications, provided such differentiation has a rational nexus with the objective of the classification.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu upheld the difference in pay scales between direct recruits and promotees within the same cadre of teachers on the basis of prior service experience.

Court dismissed civil appeals filed by G P Sangeetha and others, challenging the March 22, 2011 judgment and order of a division bench of the Kerala High Court.

"Since the two group of teachers cannot claim equivalence qua experience in rendering service as teachers, the same is a valid criterion for differentiation in pay scales," the Bench said.

Why did the Supreme Court uphold different pay scales?

Court found that the experience of transferee/promotee Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSST), Junior, compared with that of directly recruited HSST, Junior teachers, provided a valid and intelligible differentia. It held that this difference had a nexus with the object sought to be achieved and justified a higher pay scale for the former.

The Kerala High Court division bench had allowed an intra-court appeal filed by the State of Kerala and the Director of Higher Secondary Education. It had reversed the December 22, 2009 common judgment of a single judge, which had allowed several writ petitions filed by the appellants.

The appellants, HSST, Junior teachers in government-aided schools in Kerala appointed through direct recruitment under a Government Order dated May 13, 1998, had claimed the full-time pay scale being extended to teachers appointed either by transfer or promotion.

What was the issue before the Supreme Court?

The question before the Court was whether, within the same cadre of HSST, Junior teachers, there could be a difference in pay scales when the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of both groups of teachers were identical.

Court said the judicial interpretation of equal pay for equal work has undergone a significant shift.

In the last century, following its decision in Randhir Singh v Union of India (1982), Court had treated equal pay for equal work as an expansive anti-exploitation principle under Articles 14 and 39(d), where sameness of designation, such as teacher with teacher, accountant with accountant, clerk with clerk or driver with driver, could be sufficient to claim parity.

However, Court said the position has changed in this century.

Is functional similarity alone enough to claim equal pay?

No. The Bench said the doctrine has been recast as a strict test based on service rules.

Referring to decisions including State Bank of India v M.R. Ganesh Babu (2012) and State of Bihar v Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (2019), Court said equal pay cannot be claimed merely by showing that employees perform identical work.

"Decisions are legion that equal pay cannot be claimed by merely showing identical work; the claimant-employee must establish complete parity in the source of recruitment, educational qualifications and experience, mode of appointment through a constitutional process, and nature of responsibilities and accountability. Mere functional similarity of work has been held to be no longer enough," the Bench said.

Court therefore held that a mechanical application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work must be avoided.

"It is not the law that the doctrine can never be enforced; but, for such enforcement, a host of factors need consideration. If there is complete parity qua all such factors and should equal pay be claimed for equal work of equal value, the writ court can intervene and grant appropriate relief; otherwise not," the Bench said.

Court held that the difference in prior service experience between the two groups of teachers constituted a valid basis for differentiation in pay scales and dismissed the appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the Kerala High Court's judgment.

Case Title: G P Sangeetha And Ors Etc Etc Vs State of Kerala & Ors

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu 

Date of Judgment: September 08, 2026