Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)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 educated
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 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."
1