Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.28 seconds)Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003
"16. Yet again in a recent decision in State of
Haryana v. Charanjit Singh a Bench of three
learned Judges, while affirming the view taken by
this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh,
Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture &
Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty and Govt. of
W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy has reiterated that the
doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an
abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced
in a court of law. Inter alia, observing that equal
pay must be for equal work of equal value and that
24
the principle of equal pay for equal work has no
mathematical application in every case, it has been
held that Article 14 permits reasonable
classification based on qualities or characteristics
of persons recruited and grouped together, as
against those who are left out. Of course, the
qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable
relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Enumerating a number of factors which may not
warrant application of the principle of equal pay
for equal work, it has been held that since the said
principle requires consideration of various
dimensions of a given job, normally the
applicability of this principle must be left to be
evaluated and determined by an expert body and
the court should not interfere till it is satisfied that
the necessary material on the basis whereof the
claim is made is available on record with necessary
proof and that there is equal work of equal quality
and all other relevant factors are fulfilled."
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Jasmer Singh & Ors on 7 November, 1996
"16. Yet again in a recent decision in State of
Haryana v. Charanjit Singh a Bench of three
learned Judges, while affirming the view taken by
this Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh,
Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture &
Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty and Govt. of
W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy has reiterated that the
doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an
abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced
in a court of law. Inter alia, observing that equal
pay must be for equal work of equal value and that
24
the principle of equal pay for equal work has no
mathematical application in every case, it has been
held that Article 14 permits reasonable
classification based on qualities or characteristics
of persons recruited and grouped together, as
against those who are left out. Of course, the
qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable
relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Enumerating a number of factors which may not
warrant application of the principle of equal pay
for equal work, it has been held that since the said
principle requires consideration of various
dimensions of a given job, normally the
applicability of this principle must be left to be
evaluated and determined by an expert body and
the court should not interfere till it is satisfied that
the necessary material on the basis whereof the
claim is made is available on record with necessary
proof and that there is equal work of equal quality
and all other relevant factors are fulfilled."
State Of Haryana And Anr vs Tilak Raj And Ors on 14 July, 2003
"27. Thus, in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj it was
held that the principle can only apply if there is
complete and wholesale identity between the two
groups. Even if the employees in the two groups
are doing identical work they cannot be granted
equal pay if there is no complete and wholesale
identity e.g. a daily-rated employee may be doing
9
the same work as a regular employee, yet he
cannot be granted the same pay scale. Similarly,
two groups of employees may be doing the same
work, yet they may be given different pay scales if
the educational qualifications are different. Also,
pay scale can be different if the nature of jobs,
responsibilities, experience, method of
recruitment, etc. are different.
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
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."
Ranbir Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 30 April, 2009
We may also place on record that the Full Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(1998) 2 PLR
221], and Vijay Sharma v. State of Punjab [2002 (1) SCT 931], wrongly
relied upon Devinder Singh (supra) which, as noticed hereinbefore, has been
partly overruled in Charanjit Singh (supra). The High Court in the
impugned judgment even refused to consider this aspect of the matter and
chose to adopt a short cut.
S.C.Chandra & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 21 August, 2007
This has been noticed specifically by a Division Bench of this Court
in S.C. Chandra & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 279],
wherein it was held:
State Of Punjab And Ors. vs Devinder Singh And Ors. on 21 July, 1997
We may also place on record that the Full Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(1998) 2 PLR
221], and Vijay Sharma v. State of Punjab [2002 (1) SCT 931], wrongly
relied upon Devinder Singh (supra) which, as noticed hereinbefore, has been
partly overruled in Charanjit Singh (supra). The High Court in the
impugned judgment even refused to consider this aspect of the matter and
chose to adopt a short cut.