Case Analysis:-

 Facts
This writ application has been filed by Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav (Petitioner) along with Four
Lakhs other Niyojit Teachers of Bihar appointed under the Rules, 2006. Petitioners are facing
dissimilarity with the teachers who are appointed before the Rules, 2006, although both are
assigned to do the same amount of work but with different pay scale. Thus, there were two
categories of teachers, the first being those teachers who upon nationalization continued or
were appointed in all Government schools before 2006 and the second category was all the
teachers appointed under 2006 Rules. The First category i.e. regular Government Teachers
were entitled to a pay-scale and certain emoluments, whereas the Second category of teachers
were appointed by Local Authorities on a fixed salary. Teachers who are appointed as Niyojit
Teachers are being paid a salary which is less than peons and sweeper. While these Niyojit
Teachers are doing the exactly same amount of work in terms of quality and quantity i.e.
teaching the same syllabus in same school, being appointed as examiner by BSEB for
evaluation of answer sheets but only thing which is unequal is the remuneration granted to the
Niyojit Teachers. The Petitioner filed this writ petition for seeking same salaries and
emoluments on the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”

 Issues
1. Whether the ‘Rules 2006’ (Employment and Service Condition) of Bihar Government
is violating the Fundamental Right of “Right to Equality” of the Petitioner as guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
2. Whether the Rules 6 and 8 of the ‘Rules 2006’ (Employment and Service Condition)
of Bihar Government, is constitutionally valid and legal?
3. Whether the Niyojit Teachers are entitled to “Equal Pay for Equal Work” at par with
the teachers appointed in the nationalised school prior to coming into force 2006 Rules
or not?

 Legal Provisions
Legal Provisions dealing with the above-mentioned issues are:

1. The equal pay is governed under the Equality Act of 2010:

 All employees (including apprentices and those working from home), whether
on full-time, part time, casual or temporary contracts, regardless of length of
service.
 2. The preamble of the Constitution of International Labor Organisation proclaims
the principle of equal remuneration for equal work.
3. Article 4 (3) of the European Social Charter
4. The Equal Remuneration Act 1976 (replaced by the Code on Wages 2019)
5. In India, the constitution does not expressly state equal pay for equal wok as a
fundamental or even the constitutional right. It has been read into the Constitution
through the interpretation of Article 14,15 and 16 which guarantee equality before
the law, protection against discrimination and equality of opportunity in matters of
public employment 1.
6. Under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, all states ideally direct their policy
towards securing equal pay for equal work. This right being only a Directive Principle
is not enforceable in the court of law.
7. Article 42 of the Constitution of India- The state to make provision for ensuring just
and humane conditions of work and maternity reliefs.

 Precedents

1. Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India and others 2 - In this case Supreme Court
of India emphasized that if nature of responsibility, qualifications, experience and
duties discharged by the one party is the same with the other party and that both the
parties discharging their functions in same manner then there could be no distinction
between both the parties.
2. State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh3: - The Apex Court in this judgment has laid down
the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work is applicable for payment of pay/pay scale
for discharging the same responsibility. The judgment of the Apex Court was rendered
after examining almost all the judgments on the point of “equal wages for equal work”
and the Apex Court noticing the multi-faceted concept of “equal pay for equal work”
laid down a guideline for granting “equal wages for equal work”.
3. State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia4 and Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union Vs.
UOI5:- The Apex court held that the nature of work of the subject post should be the
same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be
the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity
cannot be claimed under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’
4. Mewa Ram Kanojia Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences6: The Apex Court
state that if the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a- vis the reference

1
Randhir Singh v UOI, AIR 1982 SC 879
2
Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India and others. 265 of 2006
3
State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh :(2017) 1 SCC 148
4
State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia:(1989) 1 SCC 121
5
Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union Vs. UOI: (1991) 1 SCC 619
6
Mewa Ram Kanojia Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences: (1989) 2 SCC 235,
 post are different, it may be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of
the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable.
5. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur7: - The Supreme
Court of India in this case state that for parity in pay-scales, under the principle of ‘equal
pay for equal work’, equation in the nature of duties, is of paramount importance. If the
principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is
nonteaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of
one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the
principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post
is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the
principle would not be applicable.
6. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another8:- The Supreme Court states that
there ought to be reasonableness in every action of the State.

Conclusion: - In the present case, after taking into consideration the above-mentioned law
precedents, it can be said that the petitioners Niyojit Teachers are entitled to ‘equal pay for
equal work’. I have no hesitation in stating that the petitioners are entitled to a direction for
fixation of their pay at par with their counterparts’ regular teachers. According to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, doctrine of equality is dynamic and prohibits distinction which lacks object of
achieving equality in matters of employment. It is well settled in law that Article 14 of the
Constitution prohibits class legislation, but does not prohibit reasonable classification. Rules
2006 is arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution so far as
the Niyojit Teachers are concerned. If we analyse the act of the State Government in the
backdrop of all these legal principles, we find that neither the classification in question is
reasonable in nature, nor is any rational justification given or the objective to be achieved is
established. Accordingly, the writ petition should be allowed.

Reeshav Parag
Section-G ( Fifth Semester)
Class Roll No.- 188219
Exam Roll No- 182340

7
Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur (2011) 2 SCC 452).

8
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248