The Single Bench of Justice Javaid Iqbal Wani in a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution elucidated the principle of “equal pay for equal work”and observed, “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.”

In the case at hand, the Petitioners working as Data Operators with the Respondent- State Pollution Control Board claimed parity with similarly placed persons in other Govt. Departments carrying a higher grade, whereas the Respondents’ stand before the High Court was that the nature, nomenclature and workload of the Petitioners’ post was distinct and different from the ones referred by the Petitioners, and as such, their claim cannot be entertained. 

The Court emphasized the significance of the principle of equal pay for equal work as provided under Article16(1) read with Article 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India, and the role of the Courts to strike down in equal scales of pay for identical work which is based on no classification or irrational classification. However, the Court also made it clear that it is for the person who asserts equality in work, to prove it. 

The Court, in coming to this conclusion relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in “State Bank of India & Anr. Vs M. R. Ganesh Babu & Ors. [2002 (4) SCC 556]”. 

As far as the facts of the case are concerned, the Court observed that the petitioner have failed to show that the posts they are appointed against and the posts with which they are seeking parity are same and similar in regard to the functions, responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, and as such their claim is misconceived and legally unsustainable.