Although gender disparity in earnings and wages is generally seen as negative in our nation, this group of persons is not classified as belonging to either of the two dominant genders, men or women. And how does it affect women?
Furthermore, how much do we know about the difference in pay between domestic and foreign workers? In the context of pay disparities, the intersection in this sense is underemphasized. This case concerns the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” which holds that all people, regardless of gender, caste, or religion, should be entitled to equal compensation if the job is equivalent.
randhir singh v union of india Case Facts
- A driving constable employed by the Delhi Police Force, which is overseen by the Delhi Administrations, filed the petition.
- In comparison to drivers in comparable positions, such as those employed by the Railway Protection Force, Secretariat and Non-Secretariat Offices, the Fire Brigade, and the Department of Light Houses, the pay range for delhi police force drivers was set lower.
- Since their case was not taken into consideration individually by the Third pay commission, the petitioner and other driver constables on the same pay scale appeared before the authorities.
- They filed a writ suit under article 32 of the constitution with the Supreme Court after their demands for higher pay grades were denied.
randhir singh v union of india Issues
- The petitioner alleges that the pay commission disregarded the unique considerations that were successful in the case of drivers in other departments and ought to have been successful in the case of driver-constables when determining the pay scales for police officers. The petitioner further claims that the pay commission neglected to take drivers into account as a separate category.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Equal Work, Equal Pay: According to the petitioner, drivers employed by the Delhi Police Force carried out the same tasks and responsibilities as drivers employed by other government agencies. They ought to be eligible for the same pay scale as a result.
- Violation of Fundamental Rights: It was argued that the difference in pay scales went against both Article 16’s and Article 14’s guarantees of equal opportunity in employment-related matters and equality.
- Directive Principles of State Policy: The petitioner argued that since equal pay for equal work is a Directive Principle of State Policy and is included in article 39(d) of the constitution, it ought to be put into effect.
Respondent:
- Different Departments, Different Pay: The Union of India, the respondent, contended that drivers employed by the Delhi Police Force and those employed by other departments belonged to distinct departments with dissimilar hiring practices and duties. As such, the equal pay for equal effort principle did not apply.
- Executive Prerogative: It was contended that the executive branch should make the decision about pay scales rather than the courts.
randhir singh v union of india Judgment
- The Indian Supreme Court held that even though the “equal pay for equal work” principle is not explicitly stated as a fundamental right in the country’s Constitution, it is recognized as a goal under Articles 14 and 16 as well as article 39(d) of the constitution.
- This means that the principle can be enforced in court if there is unfairness in the payment scale due to irrational classification, even if the pay scale differs for similar tasks performed for the same company or employer.
- The Supreme Court decided that if everything is equal or if all relevant factors are the same, people with identical tasks cannot be treated differently when it comes to their pay only because they work in different departments.
- The concept of “equal pay for equal work” is not abstract, but rather a substantive one, according to the court. Within a service, there can and often are different grades, each having distinct entry requirements and often acting as a ladder for advancement for officers in lower grades.
- The greater credentials or experience based on length of service sensibly support the division of the officers into two categories with different pay schedules. The concept of equal pay for equal effort would not fall within Article 14 if it were applied to specific people.
- The verdict states that the Preamble of our Constitution must be taken into consideration when interpreting Articles 14, 16, and 39(d). Therefore, rather than being founded on illogical classificational grounds, the principle “equal pay for equal work” should be followed, especially in situations where unequal pay scales have been developed for jobs and responsibilities that are equivalent.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
