State Of Haryana & Ors vs Charanjit Singh & Ors., Etc. Etc on 5 October, 2005
"21. Learned counsel for the appellants have
relied on Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Article
39(d) does not mean that all the teachers working
in the school should be equated with the clerks in
BCCL or the Government of Jharkhand for
application of the principle of equal pay for equal
work. There should be total identity between both
groups i.e. the teachers of the school on the one
hand and the clerks in BCCL, and as such the
teachers cannot be equated with the clerks of the
State Government or of BCCL. The question of
application of Article 39(d) of the Constitution has
recently been interpreted by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Charanjit Singh wherein Their
Lordships have put the entire controversy to rest
and held that the principle, "equal pay for equal
work" must satisfy the test that the incumbents are
performing equal and identical work as discharged
by employees against whom the equal pay is
claimed. Their Lordships have reviewed all the
cases bearing on the subject and after a detailed
discussion have finally put the controversy to rest
that the persons who claimed the parity should
satisfy the court that the conditions are identical
16
and equal and same duties are being discharged by
them. Though a number of cases were cited for our
consideration but no useful purpose will be served
as in Charanjit Singh all these cases have been
reviewed by this Court. More so, when we have
already held that the appellants are not the
employees of BCCL, there is no question seeking
any parity of the pay with that of the clerks of
BCCL."