2026:JHHC:4378

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 4922 of 2019

….…..

Bipta Oraon, aged about 48 years, son of Late Thuma

Oraon, resident of Near Indian Airlines Colony, Vasant

Vihar, P.O. Vasant Vihar, P.S. Vasant Vihar, District

Kapashera, New Delhi-110 057.. ..… Petitioner (s)

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief

Secretary, having its office at Project Building, P.O.

Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

2. Secretary, Personnel Training & Rajbhasa,

Government of Jharkhand, having its Project Building,

P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

3. Resident Commissioner, Government of

Jharkhand, Jharkhand Bhawan, Room Nos. 15 to 17,

Janpath, P.O. Janpath, P.S. Janpath, New Delhi.

4. The Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance

Department, Government of Jharkhand through

Principal Secretary having its office at Project Bhawan,

Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Gagarnathpur, District-

Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s)

….…..

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

….…

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate

For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, AAG-IV

….…..

C.A.V. ON: 06/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:16/02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by

the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to

forthwith grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- and upgrade

the post of the petitioner from Lower Division Clerk to

Upper Division Clerk with all consequential benefits. The

petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the

2026:JHHC:4378

2

respondents to grant benefits of Grade Pay and substantive

post as granted to the similarly situated employee namely

Miss Manisha who was working in the office of the Resident

Commissioner, Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of

Jharkhand.

Brief Facts:-

3. On creation of the State of Jharkhand on

15.11.2000, a camp Office of the Chief Minister was

established at New Delhi. Separate offices of the Resident

Commissioner and the Chief Executive Officer were also

established at Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi, to facilitate

liaison between the State Government and the Central

Government and to provide necessary infrastructure and

facilities to the Governor, Chief Minister and other officers

visiting Delhi for attending official meetings.

4. By a Resolution dated 28.07.2001, fourteen posts

for the office of the Resident Commissioner, twenty-nine

posts for Chief Executive Officer’s Office and nine posts for

the Camp Office of the Chief Minister were created. The

Resolution was also published in the Extra-Ordinary

Gazette. The posts were sanctioned and has been

permanent. After sanctioned of the said posts, no regular

appointment was made, but the appointments were made

on contractual basis, though against the sanctioned vacant

2026:JHHC:4378

3

posts.

5. An Advertisement dated 02.02.2005 was

published in the English Daily Newspaper namely

“Hindustan Times” and Hindi Daily Newspaper “Navbharat

Times” (New Delhi Edition) the essential requirement for the

posts which was advertised for contractual basis was

English and Hindi Stenographer having word processing

skills on a monthly consolidated remuneration of Rs.

5,000/-. The candidates shortlisted would be invited for

Test/Interview. Pursuant to the Advertisement published

on 02.02.2005, the petitioner has made an application and

was issued a Call Letter dated 30.04.2005 by the Chief

Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of

Jharkhand.

6. The petitioner was requested to appear for Skill

Test on 15.05.2005 in the office of the Resident

Commissioner, Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of

Jharkhand.

7. The Selection Committee requested the Director,

Institute of Secretariat Training and Management, New

Delhi (ISTM) to conduct the Skill Test for the applicants

who had responded to the Advertisement. The Director,

ISTM consented to conduct the Skill Test on 15.05.2005 at

Jharkhand Bhawan and accordingly deputed Sri H. Govind,

2026:JHHC:4378

4

Assistant Director to conduct the Skill Test. The Skill Test

comprising of the test of Hindi/English Typewriting @ 25

(Hindi)/ 30 (English) word per minute over the computer

and the test of Hindi/ English Stenography comprising

shorthand test @ 80 word per minute and subsequent

transcription over the computer took place in Jharkhand

Bhawan on 15.05.2005. For the Skill Test out of 11

applicants only the following 5 attended: -

i. Miss. Manisha

ii. Ms. Indu Pandey

iii. Mr. P. G. Anurag

iv. Mr. Bipta Oraon ( Petitioner)

v. Mr. Amit Kumar

8. The Assistant Director, ISTM informed that he

would require a couple of day to evaluate the test papers

and compile final result and thereafter submit it to

Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi and since, only 5

applicants had appeared for the Skill Test, it was decided

by the Selection Committee to hold interview for all the five

candidates. The Selection Committee on 15.05.2005, the

individual assessment for each interviewed candidate was

given by the Selection Committee which stands as follows:-

Sl.

No.

Name Marks out of total 20

2026:JHHC:4378

5

i. Ms. Manisha 14

ii. Ms. Indu Pandey 14

iii. Mr. P. G. Anurag 13

iv. Mr. Bipta Oraon

(Petitioner)

16

v. Mr. Amit Kumar 11

9. The Assistant Director, ISTM submitted his final

result in a sealed envelope on 18.05.2005.

As per the decision taken in the meeting chaired

by Resident Commissioner, Jharkhand Bhawan on

31.01.2005 regarding appointment of Typist-cum-Data

Entry Operators on contractual basis and as per the

minutes of Selection Committee Meeting held on

29.04.2005 and as per the minutes of the interview meeting

held by the Selection Committee on 15.05.2005, the

Selection Committee again met in Jharkhand Bhawan on

28.05.2005 to consider the results of the skill test

conducted by ISTM, Government of India and accordingly

submitted its final recommendation for the appointment of

Typist-cum-Data Entry Operators on contractual basis in

the office of Resident Commissioner/ Chief Administrative

Officer, Jharkhand Bhawan.

10. The result of the skill test as submitted in sealed

envelope was open on 28.05.2005 before the Selection

Committee. ISTM, Government of India after having

2026:JHHC:4378

6

conducted the skill test comprising of the test of

Hindi/English Typewriting @ 25 (Hindi)/30 (English) word

per minute over the computer and the test of Hindi/English

Stenography comprising Shorthand test @ 80 word per

minute and subsequent transcription over the computer

assessed each candidate and the consolidated result sheet

(arranged by merit) as submitted by ISTM which stands as

follows:-

Sl. No. Name Marks out of total

80

i. Ms. Indu Pandey 21

ii. Mr. Bipta Oraon

(Petitioner)

18

iii. Ms. Manisha 15

iv. Mr. P. G. Anurag 14

v. Mr. Amit Kumar 1

11. Based on the interview comprising of 20 marks

and Skilled Test comprising of 80 Marks, the aggregate

Merit List of the candidates are as follows:-

Sl.

No.

Name Marks of

Interview

out of

Total

Marks of

Skill Test

out of

Total 20

Total

Marks

i. Ms. Indu Pandey 14 21 35

ii. Mr. Bipta Oraon 16 18 34

2026:JHHC:4378

7

(Petitioner)

iii. Miss. Manisha 14 15 29

iv. Mr. P. G. Anurag 13 14 27

v. Mr. Amit Kumar 11 1 12

12. In the light of Cabinet letter dated 28.07.2001

mentioning the sanctioned post in the office of the Resident

Commissioner/ Chief Administrative Officer, Jharkhand

Bhawan, there are two posts of Typist-cum-Data Entry

Operators on contractual basis. The Selection Committee

on the basis of the aforesaid Aggregate Merit List as

indicated above decided to recommend in order of merit the

petitioner and one Indu Pandey for the post of Typists-cum-

Data Entry Operator, Hindi/English and further the

Selection Committee decided that the third candidate

namely Miss. Manisha may be kept in the waiting list.

13. A meeting was held on 02.06.2005 under the

Chairmanship of Resident Commissioner, Jharkhand

Government for appointment of Computer Data Entry

Operator on contractual basis. In the meeting held on

02.06.2005 it was decided that the petitioner should be

appointed on the sanctioned post of Typist-cum-Data Entry

Operator in the office of Resident Commissioner as the

petitioner was having knowledge in Hindi and English

typing and Indu Pandey was appointed on the post of

Typist-cum-Data Entry Operator in the office of Chief

Administrative Officer. It was further decided in the meeting

2026:JHHC:4378

8

that the candidate namely Miss Manisha who was kept in

the waiting list may be appointed on the sanctioned post of

Typist (having computer knowledge) on contractual basis

for a payment of Rs. 5500/- as a monthly remuneration.

14. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Typist-

cum-Computer Data Operator by the office of Chief

Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi on

07.06.2005 on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 5500/-.

Miss. Manisha was also appointed on the post of Typist

(having computer knowledge) by office order dated

07.06.2005 issued by the Office of Chief Administrative

Officer, Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi on a monthly

remuneration of Rs. 5500/-. Both the appointment letters

were issued on contractual basis.

15. A Writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 3973 of 2014

was filed by the petitioner, Miss. Manisha and other

employees of Jharkhand Bhawan for regularization of their

services on the posts on which they were appointed.

The fixed contract amounts fixation of contract

employees of Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi as per the

Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand Order

dated 28.07.2015 (effective from 01.08.2015) which shows

the designation of the petitioner and Miss. Manisha as Data

Entry Operator and the Grade Pay payable as Rs. 2400/-.

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner:-

16. A certificate dated 14.12.2016 was issued by the

Chief Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Bhawan,

2026:JHHC:4378

9

Government of Jharkhand certifying the salary details of

the petitioner which shows Grade Pay as Rs. 2400/-.

17. The writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 3973 of

2014 was allowed by an order dated 03.04.2017 and the

respondents were directed to regularize the services of the

petitioner and other persons. In the chart annexed in the

order dated 03.04.2017 which set out the brief description

of the petitioner employment, the nature of the post of the

petitioner and Miss. Manisha has been mentioned as

permanent.

18. A letter dated 28.09.2018 has been issued by the

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Jharkhand

Bhawan, Government of Jharkhand wherein the Grade Pay

for the Data Entry Operator has been mentioned as Rs.

2400/-.

19. The services of the petitioner was regularized on

the post of Typist-cum-Computer Data Entry Operator

(Lower Division Clerk) in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200

with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-. The services of Miss.

Manisha was regularized on the post of Typist (having

knowledge of Computer) (Upper Division Clerk) in the Pay

Scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay Rs. 2400/-.

20. A Circular dated 27.07.2023 has been issued by

the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand with

respect to recommendation for regularization of Data Entry

Operator working in the Finance Department, Government

of Jharkhand and the Grade Pay payable to the Data Entry

2026:JHHC:4378

10

Operator would be Rs. 2400/-(Level-04).

Submission of the counsel for the respondent:-

21. The State Government has filed affidavit and has

tried to justify their case by placing reliance on the

Resolution dated 28.07.2001 which provides that Miss.

Manisha was engaged on a permanent post and the

petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis over a post

which was sanctioned and was not having any fixed pay

scale.

22. The petitioner made representation dated

17.12.2018 to the Department for grant of Grade pay of Rs.

2400/-and the representation of the petitioner was

forwarded by the Chief Administrative Officer, Jharkhand

Bhawan, Government of Jharkhand to the Joint Secretary,

Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance,

Government of Jharkhand on 04.01.2019.

Findings:-

23. From perusal of the pleadings made in the writ

petition, Counter Affidavit and the rejoinder filed by the

parties, I find that the petitioner and Miss. Manisha were

appointed through same advertisement, qualification and

selection process. The Advertisement required English and

Hindi Stenographer having word processing skills on a

contractual basis. The petitioner and Miss. Manisha applied

for the said post. The selection was made on the basis of

the aggregate marks obtained in the test in which the

petitioner was at serial number 2, whereas Miss. Manisha

2026:JHHC:4378

11

was placed in the waiting list. The total aggregate marks

obtained by the petitioner was 34; whereas Miss. Manisha

obtained 29 marks. The appointment letter of the petitioner

mention about the designation of the post of the petitioner

as Typist-cum-Computer Data Entry Operator; whereas the

designation of the post of Miss. Manisha has been

mentioned as Typist (having knowledge of computer). Both

were appointed through common Advertisement having

similar qualification. The petitioner and Miss. Manisha

were discharging same duties which is evident from Office

Order dated 07.01.2019 issued by the Chief Administrative

Officer, Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of Jharkhand,

which is annexed as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. The

nature of duties assigned to the petitioner and Miss.

Manisha was Typing work.

24. The petitioner and Miss. Manisha were working

in the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- which is evident from the

Certificate dated 14.12.2016 and the letter dated

28.09.2018 issued by the Chief Administrative Officer,

Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of Jharkhand. Further

the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, vide

order dated 28.07.2015 (effective from 01.08.2015) clearly

provides the designation of the post of the petitioner and

Miss. Manisha as Data Entry Operator having Grade pay of

Rs. 2400/-. The Certificate dated 14.12.2016, letter dated

28.09.2018 and Office Order dated 28.07.2015 are part of

the documents annexed in the Rejoinder. Further, the

2026:JHHC:4378

12

Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand has

regularized the services of the employees working on the

post of Data Entry Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-

20200 with Grade pay of Rs. 2400/-. (Level-IV).

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case

of Randhir Singh Versus Union of India and Others reported

in 1982 (1) SCC 618 at para- 7 and 9 as follows:-

“Para-7:- Our attention was drawn to Binoy Kumar Mukerjee v. Union

of India and Makhan Singh v. Union of India , where reference was

made to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v.

Union of India describing the principle of “equal pay for equal work” as

an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do with Article 14. We shall

presently point out how the principle, “equal pay for equal work”, is

not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Kishori Mohanlal

Bakshi v. Union of lndia is not itself of any real assistance to us since

what was decided there was that there could be different scales of

pay for different grades of a service. It is well known that there can be

and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications

for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a

promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher

qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic

qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably

sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different

scales of pay. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” would be an

abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be applied to

them.

Para-9:- There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the

Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other

drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central

Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the

“powers, functions and privileges of a police officer”, their duties and

responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the allegation in the

petition that the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no

less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted

by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver-

constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the

reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others? There is none.

The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi

Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and

that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not a principle which

the courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown that the

answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow

the writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of

the petitioner and the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force at

least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force.

The scale of pay shall be effective from January 1, 1973, the date from

which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect.”

2026:JHHC:4378

13

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union Versus

Union of India and Others reported in 1991 (1) SCC

619 at para- 6, 7 and 8 as follows:-

“Para-6:- Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the

Constitution as a fundamental right but in view of the Directive

Principles of State Policy as contained in Article 39(d) of the

Constitution “Equal pay for equal work” has assumed the status of

fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the

constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. Equal pay for equal work and providing security for

service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period

has been accepted by this Court as a constitutional goal to our

socialistic pattern. It has ceased to be a judge made law as it is the

part of the constitutional philosophy which ensures a welfare

socialistic pattern of a State providing equal opportunity to all and

equal pay for equal work for similarly placed employees of the State.

This Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right of equal pay

for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and

social justice in a number of decisions. See: Randhir Singh v. Union of

India ; Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department v.

Union of India ; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P.; Surinder Singh v.

Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD ; R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi

Administration ; Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana ; Jaipal v. State of

Haryana ; Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees

Association v. State of Karnataka. Therefore, the principle of equal pay

for equal work even in an establishment which is an instrumentality of

a State is applicable to its full vigour.

Para-7:- The question then arises whether the respondents have

practised discrimination in denying the employees of the Kendra pay

which the Union of India has been paying to other similarly placed

employees doing the same or similar work. This question is of primary

importance which requires investigation of facts. Unless, it is

demonstrated that the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra are

discriminated in matters relating to pay and other emoluments with

the other similarly placed employees, the principle of equal pay for

equal work cannot be applied. While considering this question, it is not

necessary to find out similarity by mathematics formula but there

must be a reasonable similarity in the nature of work, performance of

duties, the qualification and the quality of work performed by them. It

is permissible to have classification in services based on hierarchy of

posts, pay scale, value of work and responsibility and experience. The

classification must, however, have a reasonable relation to the object

sought to be achieved. In Federation of All India Customs and Central

Excise Stenographers v. Union of India, Saybasachi Mukharji, J. (as he

then was) observed: (SCC p. 100, para 7)

“…there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability

and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the

responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often

the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an

element of value judgment by those who are charged with the

administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions

2026:JHHC:4378

14

of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide,

reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational

nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will

not amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise that

equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 of the

Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal

work will be a negation of that right.”

Elaborating the aforesaid observation the

learned Judge further observed thus: (SCC pp. 104-05, para

11) “The same amount of physical work may entail different

quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact,

some less — it varies from nature and culture of employment.

The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into

a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the

object to be sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of

value judgment of the administrative authorities who are

charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and

it cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is

demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or

arrived mala fide either in law or in fact.”

Para-8:- The petitioners have referred to the scale of pay paid to the

similar employees of NDMC and Delhi Development Authority under

the Delhi Administration for the various employees to demonstrate that

the employees of the Kendra are being discriminated as they are paid

lower amount of salary although they perform the same duties and

functions as performed by corresponding employees holding

corresponding posts under the NDMC and Delhi Administration.”

27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case

of State of Punjab and Ors. Versus Jagjit Singh

and Others reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 at para-42,

42.6, 44.1, 44.2, 44.6, 51.3, 57, 58 and 60 held as

follows:-

“Para-42:- All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 hereinabove,

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:

2026:JHHC:4378

15

Para-42.6:- For placement in a regular pay scale, the claimant has to

be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected on the

basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a

temporary basis cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay scale

(see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case.

Para-44.1:- In Dhirendra Chamoli case, this Court examined a claim

for pay parity raised by temporary employees for wages equal to those

being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was accepted. The

action of not paying the same wage despite the work being the same

was considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was

held that the action amounted to exploitation — in a welfare State

committed to a socialist pattern of society.

Para-44.2:- In Surinder Singh case, this Court held, that the right of

equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter alia,

from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of “equal pay for equal

work” was again applied, where the subject employee had been

appointed on temporary basis, and the reference employee was borne

on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee was held

entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular establishment.

In this judgment, this Court also took note of the fact that the above

proposition was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in D.S.

Nakara case.

Para-44.6:- In State of Karnataka case, a Constitution Bench of this

Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily

wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and

allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this case,

this Court made a very important -22- distinction between pay parity

and regularisation. It was held that the concept of equality would not

be applicable to issues of absorption/regularisation. But, the concept

was held as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay

parity — if the work component was the same. The judgment rendered

by the High Court was modified by this Court, and the daily-wage

employees concerned were directed to be paid wages equal to the

salary at the lowest grade of the cadre concerned.

Para-51.3:- For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the

claim of the temporary employees for minimum wages on a par with

regularly engaged government employees cannot be declined on the

basis of the judgment in State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh.

Para-57:- There is no room for any doubt that the principle of “equal

pay for equal work” has emerged from an interpretation of different

provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded

through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and

constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the

courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The

parameters of the principle have been summarised by us in para 42

hereinabove. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has also been

extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-

charge, daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The

legal position, relating to temporary employees has been summarised

by us, in para 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has

been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us yet again.

Para-58:- In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial

parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the

same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same

duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an

action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of

human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage

does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to

2026:JHHC:4378

16

his family, at the cost of his selfrespect and dignity, at the cost of his

self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his

dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser

wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly

situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of

a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive,

suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.

Para-60:- Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the

application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, in relation to

temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees,

employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the

like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the

employees concerned (before this Court), were rendering similar duties

and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees

holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the

application of the parameters of the principle of “equal pay for equal

work” summarised by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the

instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to

record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly

acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of

Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of

appeals were appointed against posts which were also available in

the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during the

course of their employment, the temporary employees concerned were

being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which

at some point in time were assigned to regular employees. Likewise,

regular employees holding substantive posts were also posted to

discharge the same work which was assigned to temporary employees

from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the

duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in

the present set of appeals were the same as were being discharged by

regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the

respondent employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for

appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the

State that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to

pay parity on any of the principles summarised by us in para 42

hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of “equal pay

for equal work” would be applicable to all the temporary employees

concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with

the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government

employees holding the same post.”

28. Thus, from the documents available on record,

pleadings and judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India, the act of the respondents by not granting

Grade pay of Rs. 2400/- to the petitioner is violative of

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and

accordingly, this Court holds that the Petitioner is entitled

for the relief as claimed.

2026:JHHC:4378

17

Consequently, the respondents are expected to

grant/ fix the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- to the petitioner

within a period of 8 weeks from the date of

receipt/production of the order. After fixation of the Grade

pay of the petitioner the arrears shall be released within a

period of 16 weeks.

29. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in

the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending IAs, if any, are

closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

Dated:16/02/2026

Amardeep/

N.A.F.R

Uploaded

18.02.2026