MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Equal Pay for Equal Work - Pay Scale Parity and Pay Commission's Recommendations Upheld by Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision , the Supreme Court of India upheld the Delhi High Court's ruling that granted pay scale parity to employees of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) headquarters with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS). The bench, comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, dismissed an appeal by the Union of India, emphasizing the importance of historical parity and adherence to the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission.

Join us on WhatsApp .

In their judgement, the apex court noted, "The High Court has not undertaken the exercise regarding which restraint has been expressed by this Court. However, on the admitted facts and the earlier situation which existed, a consideration has been made keeping in view the very recommendation of the Pay Commission in reckoning the appropriate application of the pay scale."

This decision marks a significant recognition of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work.' The court observed that there was a clear historical precedent of parity in pay scales between the employees of OFB and those in similar positions within the CSS. The Supreme Court further clarified, "In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no order as to costs."

The case, which hinged on the interpretation of the VIth Central Pay Commission's recommendations, highlights the nuanced approach the judiciary must take in matters of pay scale disparity. The bench underscored the judicial restraint required in such matters but acknowledged the necessity to intervene in cases of palpable discrimination or arbitrariness.

Representing the appellants, Mr. R. Bala Subramanian argued the limited scope of judicial review in matters of pay scale fixation. Conversely, Ms. Kiran Suri, representing the respondents, emphasized the historical parity and the unjust treatment meted out to OFB employees.

The judgement also referenced several past decisions, including "Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Another (2023) SCC Online SC 173" and "Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586," to reinforce its stance.

This ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for similar cases of pay disparity in various government sectors, reinforcing the role of historical parity and Pay Commission guidelines in determining pay scales.

Date of Decision: 09 November  2023

Union of India & Ors. VS D.G.O.F. Employees Association and Anr.

Latest Legal News