01.03.2025 Prem Lata Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and another

Legal Reasoning

various interim orders passed by this court in different petitions from time to time.

3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned memo, dated 27.06.2019, is discriminatory against the ineligible Extension Lecturers to the extent they have been given lesser remuneration as compared to eligible Extension Lecturers, though both the categories are performing same duties and functions of teaching. This is violative of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ laid down by the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh case (supra). Accordingly, the petitioners are also entitled to the higher remuneration of ₹57,700 per month.

4. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, has contended that the petitioners are ineligible Extension Lecturers. They were engaged prior to coming into force of the Policy guidelines, dated 04.03.2020, on the basis of their Master’s degree only. In terms of the Policy, they have no right to continue in service and cannot be given the benefit claimed. The minimum laid down qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor that they are required to possess to get higher remuneration, have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.

5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. PAYAL 2025.03.17 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25367-2019 -4-

6. It remains an undisputed fact that the petitioners have been engaged as Extension Lecturers only on the basis of their Master’s degree in the relevant subject with minimum fifty-five per cent marks. They did not meet the essential qualifications, which are the same as prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor, as none of them had Ph.D. or a certificate of having cleared National Eligibility Test (NET). In terms of Policy dated 04.03.2020, replaced by the subsequent guidelines dated 02.11.2023, the ineligible Extension Lecturers have no right to continue in service, and are to be removed after the Policy coming in force unless protected by orders passed by this Court. Their claim for higher remuneration by setting aside that part of the impugned memo, dated 27.06.2019, which provides lesser remuneration of ₹35,400 per month for them being ineligible, as compared to ₹57,700 for the eligible Extension Lecturers, is without substance. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ sought to be invoked to justify the claim, is not applicable to their case. One of the essential prerequisites to make the principle applicable is that the two sets of employees must have similar qualifications, apart from meeting the other requirements of same responsibilities and duties, same volume of work, same hierarchy in service, etc. However, the petitioners admittedly do not possess the qualifications meant for eligible Extension Lecturers who have been given higher remuneration of ₹57,700 per month in terms of the impugned memo. Accordingly, they cannot be termed equal vis- à-vis eligible Extension Lecturers, nor can they claim equal pay as has been given to the eligible.

7. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the following observations in Jagjit Singh case laying down the parameters to apply the PAYAL 2025.03.17 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’: CWP-25367-2019 -5-

42. All the judgments noticed in paragraphs 7 to 24 herein above, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them, were against the same post for which a higher pay-scale was being allowed, in other Government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were the same, as of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale. Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’was invoked and considered, it would be just and appropriate, to delineate the parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the said parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to express the legal position with reference to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work'. Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions:- (i) to (vii) (viii) If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis- a-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable (see - the Mewa Ram Kanojia case, and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 S.C.T. PAYAL 2025.03.17 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25367-2019 -6- 78: (2004) 1 SCC 347). In such a cause, the principle of `equal pay for equal work', cannot be invoked. (ix) to (xvii) Consequently, not having the qualifications prescribed for eligible Extension Lecturers, the petitioners cannot claim parity in remuneration with them. And there is no need to examine other parameters for applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ laid down in Jagjit Singh case. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition, and it stands (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No

8. dismissed.

01.03.2025 Payal PAYAL 2025.03.17 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document