Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.61 seconds)
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Saroja on 21 December, 2024 cites

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016

“ 8. This Court is of the view that the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India is too sacred to be defeated by invoking the principle of estoppel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in decision reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 – State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others held that even temporary employees will be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale as extended to the regular employees holding the same post. The members of the petitioner's Association are discharging the duty of Scavengers in the School Education Department but other Scavengers working in the very same department have been placed in the higher time scale of pay. This is patently discriminatory. When two employees are doing the same work, both will have to be paid the very same salary. The question of waiver will not arise in these cases. Fundamental rights cannot be waived. It has held that the right of equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India states that the State shall direct its policy towards securing that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though this directive principle of State policy is more in the context of gender equity, the philosophy behind it can be applied to uphold the general principle of equal pay for equal work. This Court considering a similar issue in the case of Colleges struck down the discriminatory approach of the department. Such an order was passed on 19.09.2014 in W.P. No.7884 of 2013. Excepting that the petitioners in W.P.(MD).No. 7884 of 2013 are working in Colleges as Scavengers and the members of the petitioner's Association are working as Scavengers in schools, there is no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9 W.A.No.3730 of 2024 other difference. The case of the members of the petitioner's Association therefore deserves to be allowed.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 2405 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1