G.P. Sangeetha and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Background
The appellants were Higher Secondary School Teachers, Junior (HSST Jr.), in government-aided schools in Kerala, appointed through direct recruitment. They claimed the same full-time pay scale that was being given to HSST Jr. teachers who reached that post by transfer or promotion from lower schools, arguing that both groups did identical work. A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court had agreed and ruled in their favour, but a Division Bench of the same High Court reversed that ruling on the State's appeal, holding that promoted teachers (who came with long prior service as full-time permanent teachers) could not be equated with direct recruits who were fresh entrants. The direct recruits then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that the precedents relied on by the Single Judge were from the last century, when "equal pay for equal work" was applied expansively on mere sameness of designation. Since then, starting with State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu and culminating in State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, the law has shifted to require complete parity in source of recruitment, qualifications, mode of appointment, and experience/responsibility, not just similarity of work, before equal pay can be claimed. Applying this stricter test, the Court held that promoted/transferred HSST Jr. teachers, who brought years of prior full-time service in lower schools, had a valid and reasonable differentiating factor (experience) that justified giving them the higher, full-time pay scale that direct recruits did not have. It also held that a contrary Calcutta High Court decision relied upon by the appellants (Anirban Ghosh) was per incuriam since it had not considered binding Supreme Court precedent, and the mere dismissal of an SLP against it did not change the legal position. The appeals were accordingly dismissed and the Division Bench's judgment upheld.
Lesson Learnt
"Equal pay for equal work" is not a mechanical rule based only on similarity of duties. Courts will examine whether there is genuine parity in recruitment source, qualifications, and experience, and a real difference in any of these (such as years of prior service) can justify unequal pay even for employees doing the same job.