A senior employee holding the same post cannot be paid less than a junior unless there is a valid reason for the difference, the Supreme Court of India has ruled.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside an Allahabad High Court order and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to bring the salary of a senior college teacher on par with that of his junior.
The case involved Jai Prakash Singh, a Reader in the Department of Education at Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh, and his colleague Dr Pradeep Kumar. Both had joined as lecturers on the same day in 1990, but Singh was senior and had obtained his PhD earlier.
The anomaly arose after Kumar was granted two advance increments following an order of the Allahabad High Court in a separate case. The increments pushed his salary above Singh’s.
Singh approached the education authorities seeking pay parity, but his representations were rejected. His subsequent petition before the Allahabad High Court was also dismissed in 2018, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined a 2009 Uttar Pradesh government order dealing specifically with such anomalies. It provides that where the revised pay of a senior teacher falls below that of a junior, the senior’s salary should be stepped up to match the junior’s.
The Bench found that Singh had, in fact, been drawing a higher salary than Kumar before January 2006 and disagreed with the High Court’s finding that the provision did not apply to him.
More importantly, the State could not show any difference in qualifications for the post, recruitment, experience, responsibilities or accountability that would justify paying the junior more.
The Court held that the anomaly violated Article 14 of the Constitution as well as the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d). Government policies, it said, must ultimately remain consistent with these constitutional principles.
Allowing Singh’s appeal, the Supreme Court directed that the financial benefits due to him be extended as early as possible and no later than three months from the judgment.
