Allahabad High Court
Dr. Gangesh Dixit And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 2 April, 2026
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 86 of 2021 Dr. Gangesh Dixit and 4 others ..Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. and 6 others ..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajendra Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Man Mohan Singh AFR Reserved on 18.03.2026 Delivered on 02.04.2026 With CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE Nos. - 241 of 2025, 34 of 2026, 40 of 2026, 42 of 2026, WRIT- A Nos.- 19625 of 2025 and 19528 of 2025. Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2025 in Civil Misc Review Application Defective No. 241 of 2025, Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2026 in Civil Misc Review Application Defective No.34 of 2026, Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2026 in Civil Misc Review Application Defective No. 40 of 2026, Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2026 in Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 42 of 2026.
Heard Sri R.P.Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Man Mohan Singh and Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite parties. The reasons to condone delay as well as liberty granted by the Division Bench to file Review Application, delay is condoned. Delay Condonation Applications are allowed. Registry is directed to allot regular numbers to CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE Nos.- 241 of 2025, 34 of 2026, 40 of 2026 and 42 of 2026.
Order on Review Applications
1. Heard Sri R.P.Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Man Mohan Singh and Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. In the present case, the Writ Petition bearing No.26100 of 2018 was allowed vide an order dated 13.2.2019. For reference, said order in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter:-
1. This writ petition was entertained on 11th December, 2018, and the grievance of the petitioners was taken note of while permitting the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. Order dated 11.12.2018 is reproduced hereinafter:-
“Petitioners are working as Assistant Professors on honorarium basis in different departments of Post Graduate Colleges affiliated to Purvanchal University. Their grievance is that though 7th Pay Commission has been made applicable upon the Institution, wherein they are working, yet its benefit has been denied to them.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the Government Order dated 2.12.2013 to contend that teachers engaged on honorarium basis are entitled to minimum of pay scale except allowances. Once the 7th Pay Commission report got enforced, the minimum pay scale was liable to have been appropriately enhanced so as to make it in conformity with the 7th Pay Commission report. Submission is that despite repeated representations made, the authorities are not extending the benefit which are otherwise applicable to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex court State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain specific instructions in the matter from the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, as to why the benefit of minimum of pay scale are not extended to the teachers engaged on honorarium basis, when the 7th Pay Commission Report has been enforced otherwise.
Put up as fresh, once again, on 20.12.2018.”
2. The matter has been deferred from time to time on the request of learned Standing Counsel. Ultimately an affidavit has been filed by Additional Chief Secretary (Higher Education), wherein following averments are made in para 3:-
“3. That it is submitted that the issue relating to the extension of benefit of minimum pay scale to the teachers engaged on honorarium basis at aided non government colleges of the State as per recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission being a policy matter has been referred to the finance department on dated 3.1.2019. That the decision in regard thereto shall be possible to be taken after obtaining the comments of the Finance department.”
A subsequent affidavit has now been filed in which the officer concerned has stated as under in para 5:-
“5. That the petitioners were appointed on honorarium basis and getting a fixed remuneration along with Dearness Allowance (DA) as applicable from time to time. It is important to mention here that the matter was referred to finance department, Government of Uttar Pradesh for their concurrence. It has been informed that the subject matter of the honorarium is neither linked with the basic pay nor it is related with commencement of the date of pay commission. The DA is increasing from time to time, therefore, honorarium is also increasing automatically. The recommendations of 7th pay commission report has been only applicable to regular teachers and as such the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of the recommendations of 7th pay commission report as claimed by the petitioners. In view of that it is not justified to fix the honorarium as per the basic pay from the date of implementation of 7th pay commission.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, has placed reliance upon various orders passed by this Court, as also the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, AIR 2016 SC 5176, and a recent decision in Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others, AIR 2019 SC 220. Reliance is placed upon para 9 to 13 of the Apex Court judgment in Sabha Shanker Dube (supra):-
“9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows:
“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 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.”
10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post.
11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.
12. We express no opinion on the contention of the State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to the reliefs as they are not working on Group ‘D’ posts and that some of them worked for short periods in projects.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these Appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court holding that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1st December, 2018.”
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record.
5. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 7.4.1998, whereby teachers in recognized post-graduate colleges were permitted to be engaged on honorarium basis. A procedure for appointment was specified and approval was to be obtained from the Director before appointing such persons. There is no dispute raised on the factual plea that the petitioners have been appointed after following such procedure prescribed. It is also not in issue that they are working since long and are performing same functions, as are being performed by the regular Assistant Professor appointed and working in the same institution. It is also not in issue that 7th Pay Commission Report has been implemented in these institutions and the counterparts of petitioners, who have been appointed regularly are being paid salary in the scale of pay prescribed in 7th Pay Commission Report.
6. The issue sought to be raised before this Court has had a chequered history. The grievance of similarly placed teachers engaged on honorarium basis was brought before this Court in Writ Petition No.4812 of 1988 (Km. Renu Tiwari and others Vs. The Director Higher Education and others). The Division Bench of this Court after noticing the scheme relating to their engagement as also the judgments delivered by the Apex Court in that regard proceeded to interfere with a similar Government Order issued earlier on 27th July, 1986, and the teachers were directed to be paid minimum of pay scale in the regular pay scale for Lecturer teaching in the same college. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 10th October, 1996 in Km. Renu Tiwari (supra) reads as under:-
“In the premise we are of the view that the government order dated 22.7.1986 is liable to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled at lest the minimum pay scale in the regular pay scale for lecturers teaching in same college. According to the petitioners it is scale of pay of Rs.2000/-4000/-. In the circumstances, we direct that the petitioners be paid salary instead of per lecturer equivalent to Rs.15/- if not already enhanced, in the minimum of the scale of pay. In case the pay scale has been enhanced, the salary shall be paid in the enhanced pay scale. We further provide that the case of the petitioners for regularization be considered in the light of observations made above and in accordance with law.
The writ petition is allowed in terms mentioned above. Parties to bear their own costs.”
7. The judgment of this Court in Km. Renu Tiwari (supra) was subjected to challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court but the special leave petition was also dismissed. The view taken in Km. Renu Tiwari (supra) was followed by a subsequent Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.37014 of 1999 (Uccha Shikshit Yuva Kalyan Samiti and another Vs. State of U.P. and another). The judgment of the Division Bench dated 12th April, 2002 is reproduced hereinafter:-
“Heard counsel for the parties.
The facts of the case are covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in Writ Petition No.4812 of 1988 Km. Renu Tiwari Vs. The Director, Higher Education decided on 04.10.1996. Against that order S.L.P. has been rejected by the Supreme Court vide Annexure 5 to the petition.
Following the aforesaid decision this petition is allowed on the same terms and conditions as in Renu Tiwari‘s case (supra).”
8. The Court is informed that a special leave petition against this judgment was also filed but the same was withdrawn. A Government Order, consequently, came to be issued on 21th November, 2007, as per which salary was to be paid to the teachers engaged on honorarium in the minimum of pay scale admissible to their counterparts engaged on regular basis. A subsequent Government Order was thereafter issued on 6.1.2009 in which also the directions in that regard were reiterated. The matter was again brought before a Division Bench of this Court in Service Bench No.1175 of 2009 (Dr. Gaurav Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others). The earlier judgment of this Court in Km. Renu Tiwari (supra) has been reiterated. Para 27 to 29 of the Division Bench judgment dated 22.12.2010 is reproduced hereinafter:-
“27. By catena of judgments their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that right to life includes quality and dignity of life. Life does not mean only animal living but a life which may fulfil the minimum requirements of food, cloth and shelter, vide 2001(6) SCC 496 Hinch Lal Tewari versus Kamala Devi and AIR 1991 SC 1902 Banglore Medical Trust versus B.S. Mudappa ; AIR 2007 SC 1046 Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others and 2006(13) SCC 382 Nagar Nigam, Meerut versus Al Faheem Meat Exports Private Limited and others;Maneka Gandhi Vs. U.O.I. AIR 1978 SC 597: 1978 (2) SCR 621: (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Board of Tustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109: 1983 (1) SCR 828: (1983) 1 SCC 124.
28. Since in the case of Km. Renu Tiwari, the Division Bench has decided the claim of part time lecturers with regard to payment of regular salary, it is not open now, to reconsider the same aspect of the matter in these bunch of writ petitions. All part time lecturers shall be entitled for payment of salary in terms of judgment given in the case of Km. Renu Tiwari (supra).
29. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition in part maintaining the order in question subject to observations made herein above. The petitioners shall be entitled to be considered for regularisation in pursuance of directions issued in Anurag Tripathi (supra). So far as the payment of salary is concerned, all the similarly situate candidates shall be entitled for salary in terms of Km. Renu Tiwari‘s case (supra).”
9. The view taken has again been reiterated by a subsequent Division Bench in Service Bench No. 284 of 2011, Dr. Mahendra Upadhyay S/o Shri Ram Mani Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary Higher Education & Anr., decided vide following orders passed on 22.2.2011:-
“Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is finally disposed of at admission stage.
The petitioner, who is working as part-time/ad hoc Teacher, submits that he is entitled to continue till the regular selectee joins. Argument advanced by the petitioner has got force.
While deciding a bunch of writ petitions, leading one is writ petition No.1175(S/B) of 2009 Dr. Gaurav Mishra versus State of U.P. and others, the earlier judgment of this Court has been reiterated with a finding that ad hoc/part- time teachers have got right to continue till the regular selectees join and shall also be entitled for minimum pay-scale.
Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition finally in terms of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2010, passed in writ petition No.1175(S/B) of 2009 Dr. Gaurav Mishra versus State of U.P. and others.
Subject to above, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
No order as to costs.”
10. The long line of judgments clearly go to show that entitlement of honorarium teachers to be paid at the minimum of the pay scale has been acknowledged by this Court and has also been acted upon by the State Government. It may also be noticed that a provision has also been added by the legislature in the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, providing for absorption of the services of such teachers. The matter relating to absorption of such teachers are stated to be under active consideration of the State Government.
11. In view of the facts that have been brought on record, this Court finds that petitioners are performing same work, as are being performed by the substantively appointed Associate Professors working in the same institution, where the petitioners are working. Regularly recruited Associate Professors are being extended benefit of pay scale determined in the 7th Pay Commission. The petitioners are already being paid salary in minimum of pay scale as per 6th Pay Commission Report. Once the pay commission report has been revised with the introduction of 7th Pay Commission, there would be no justification in denying minimum of pay scale to the petitioners as per the 7th Pay Commission Report. Even in Km. Renu Tiwari (supra), which has consistently been followed for the last more than two decades, there is a clear stipulation that pay scale admissible to such teachers would be enhanced as per the revised/enhanced pay scale. There is, therefore, no justification for the authorities to deny similar treatment to the present petitioners.
12. The only argument advanced on behalf of respondents is that petitioners since are granted benefit of Dearness Allowance, therefore, they are not entitled to minimum of scale of pay determined in the 7th Pay Commission, and that 7th Pay Commission Report has not been enforced in respect of honorarium teachers. Such arguments are apparently misplaced. The petitioners have already been granted benefit of minimum of pay scale by the State, considering the fact that they are otherwise performing work which is being discharged by regular Associate Professors. Once benefit of 7th Pay Commission Report has been enforced in the department, it would not be fair and reasonable to deny salary in the minimum of scale of pay as per 7th Pay Commission Report to the petitioners and allow them minimum of pay scale as per 6th Pay Commission Report. Moreover, in view of the subsequent judgments delivered by the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), as also in Sabha Shanker Dube (supra), the Apex Court has been pleased to clarify that such persons, who are continuing since long and are discharging similar functions should be paid salary in the minimum of pay scale admissible to their regular counterparts in the same institution.
13. In view of the discussions, aforesaid, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to extend benefit of minimum of pay scale to teachers engaged on honorarium basis pursuant to Government Order dated 7th April, 1998, and they would also be paid salary in the minimum of pay scale, as specified in the 7th Pay Commission Report for their regular counterparts. The petitioners would be entitled to such benefits from the date the 7th Pay Commission Report has been enforced i.e. 1.1.2016. The petitioners, however, would not be entitled to allowances, which are not sanctioned to them, so far. No order is passed as to costs.
3. The above referred order dated 13.2.2019, was thereafter challenged by State of U.P. before a Division Bench of this Court by way of filing bunch of Special Appeals leading being Special Appeal Defective No.517 of 2019, (State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Dr. Gangesh Dixit And 4 Ors), which was dismissed vide an order dated 2.12.2020. For reference, said order in its entirety is also reproduced hereinafter:
1. This appeal is barred by limitation from 66 days. Ignoring the same, we have looked into the merits of the case.
2. The appeals aforesaid are preferred to question the correctness of the judgement dated 13th February 2019 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ A No. 26100 of 2018.
3. Under the judgement impugned, learned Single Bench while accepting the petition for writ issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to extend the benefits of payment of wages at minimum pay scale relating to post of teachers with effect from 1st January, 2016.
4. The arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of State is that respondents-petitioners were not regular member of the service and as such they are not entitled to have fixation of their pay in the pay scale applicable for regular employees.
5. We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced. Learned Single Bench has not treated the respondents-petitioners as regular employees prior to their regularisation in service and has also not given any direction to treat the respondents-petitioners at par with regular teachers. It is admitted position that the respondents-petitioners were working as a teachers in pursuance of a decision taken by the Government and their payments were not in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or its proviso. The respondents- petitioners simply claimed grant of pay at the minimum of regular pay scale on the basis of principle of doctrine ”equal pay for equal work’, which is substantiated by Article 39 (d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The doctrine aforesaid in the similar circumstances has already been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases including Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1982, SC 879. In the case aforesaid the Apex Court observed that ”equal pay for equal work’ is not a mere demagogic slogan though it is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies by the enforcement of constitutional rights. The principle aforesaid has been further relied in the cases of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, AIR, 2016, SC 5176 and Subha Shankar Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, AIR 2019, SC 220.
6. In the instant matter, learned Single Bench by relying upon the judgements aforesaid has issued directions to allow pay to the respondents-petitioners at minimum of the pay scale applicable on teachers with effect from 1st January, 2016. The direction given is in consonance to the doctrine of ”equal pay for equal work’ and it does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference in the appellate jurisdiction.
7. The appeals as such having lack of merit dismissed accordingly.
4. Subsequently, against the above referred order dated 2.12.2020, State of U.P. filed a Review Application No.9 of 2020, before the Division Bench, which was disposed of vide an order dated 19.2.2021, whereby liberty was granted to file review application before Writ Court. For reference Order dated 02.12.2020 is reproduced in its entirety hereinafter:-
Civil Misc. Review Application No. 9 of 2020
After arguing the application to some extent, learned Additional Advocate General wants to withdraw this application with liberty to move a review petition before learned Single Bench.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
Suffice to mention that the observations made in the order passed by Division Bench in special appeal would not be having any adverse effect while getting the review considered by learned Single Bench.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances present review applications are being filed along with applications for condonation of delay, not only in leading Writ Petition No. 26100 of 2018, but in the other Writ Petitions which were disposed of later on; in terms of order dated 13.02.2019 details of same are mentioned in next paragraph.
6. (i) Writ Petition No.5048 of 2019 was disposed of vide order dated 4.4.2019 in terms of judgment and order dated 13.2.2019, passed in Writ Petition No.26100 of 2018.
(ii) Writ Petition No.6389 of 2019 was disposed of vide order dated 25.4.2019, in terms of judgment and order dated 13.2.2019, passed in Writ Petition No.26100 of 2018
(iii) Writ Petition No.4462 of 2019 was disposed of vide order dated 28.3.2019, in terms of judgment and order dated 13.2.2019, passed in Writ Petition No.26100 of 2018.
7.As referred above, review application is being filed after liberty was granted to State of U.P., therefore there is no much argument so far as maintainability of present review applications are concerned.
8. It is a case where petitioners prayer to grant them benefit of 7th pay Commission so far as salary in minimum pay scale is concerned was granted whereas undisputedly petitioners are working as Assistant Professors on Honorarium basis in different departments of Post Graduate Colleges affiliated to Purvanchal University and burden of payment is on the State Exchequer.
9. In the order dated 13.2.2019, it was observed that petitioners are discharging same duties as discharged by regular Assistant Professors. However, it has been rightly pointed out by learned counsel for review applicants that there was no consideration as to how petitioners were discharging same duties as their counterparts as well as order was passed without exchange of pleadings, therefore, Court finds that without any detail consideration as to whether petitioners are discharging same duties as regular appointees, the finding of Equal Work cannot be substantiated.
10. Judgment under review was further proceeded on basis of earlier orders passed to grant minimum pay scale to petitioners as recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission, however Court finds that this finding was based only on basis of averments made in the writ petition or a submission made during oral arguments, without any documentary proof of it, which is also an error on the face of record.
11. Law in regard to consideration for Review Application is being reiterated in a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer and Anr, 2024 (2) SCC 362 and its relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinafter:-
16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:
16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected.
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
12. Court now proceeds to refer relevant paragraphs of judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors, (2017) 1 SCC 148, since it was heavily relied upon in the order dated 13.02.2019 so much as whether factors enumerated therein were considered in judgment under review as well as petitioners have discharged their onus of proof or not for equal work:
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:
42.1. The onus of proof of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post under the principle of equal pay for equal work lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the court has to establish that the subject post occupied by him requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case [Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645] , UT Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur [U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur, (2011) 2 SCC 452 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 348] , SAIL case [SAIL v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 192] and National Aluminium Co. Ltd. case [National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] ).
42.2. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant is in a different department vis–vis the reference post does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim under the principle of equal pay for equal work. Persons discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of the Government (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] and D.S. Nakara case [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] ).
42.3. The principle of equal pay for equal work, applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] ). For equal pay, the employees concerned with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case [Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 91 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 673] , Mewa Ram Kanojia case [Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (1989) 2 SCC 235 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 329] , Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union case [Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 619 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 621] and S.C. Chandra case [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 : 2 SCEC 943] ).
42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work (see Randhir Singh case [Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] , State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] and Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature.
42.5. In determining equality of functions and responsibilities under the principle of equal pay for equal work, it is necessary to keep in mind that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case [Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 91 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 673] and SBI case [SBI v. M.R. Ganesh Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 556 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 568] ). 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 (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia [State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71] and Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union case [Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 619 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 621] ).
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 [Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645] ).
42.7. Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay scales. Such as selection grade, in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia [State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 71] ).
42.8. If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis–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 Mewa Ram Kanojia case [Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (1989) 2 SCC 235 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 329] and State of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [State of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 225] ). In such a case the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked.
42.9. The reference post with which parity is claimed under the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be at the same hierarchy in the service as the subject post. Pay scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a promotional post (see Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey [Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey, (2000) 8 SCC 580 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 56] and Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ).
42.10. A comparison between the subject post and the reference post under the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be made where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see Harbans Lal case [Harbans Lal v. State of H.P., (1989) 4 SCC 459 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 71] ). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] ).
42.11. Different pay scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable. And also when the reference post includes the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post (see SBI case [SBI v. M.R. Ganesh Babu, (2002) 4 SCC 556 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 568] ).
42.12. The priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay scales. Herein also, the principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable (see State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] ).
42.13. The parity in pay, under the principle of equal pay for equal work, cannot be claimed merely on the ground that at an earlier point of time the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay scale. The principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities (see State of W.B. v. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn. [State of W.B. v. W.B. Minimum Wages Inspectors Assn., (2010) 5 SCC 225 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 1] ).
42.14. 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 non-teaching, 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 (see U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur [U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur, (2011) 2 SCC 452 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 348] ).
42.15. There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay scales between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e. between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office level (see Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ), when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar.
42.16. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues (see Hukum Chand Gupta case [Hukum Chand Gupta v. ICAR, (2012) 12 SCC 666 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 493] ).
42.17. Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organisation, and another set of employees of a different organisation, there can be no question of equation of pay scales under the principle of equal pay for equal work, even if two organisations have a common employer. Likewise, if the management and control of two organisations is with different entities which are independent of one another, the principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply (see S.C. Chandra case [S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 897 : 2 SCEC 943] and National Aluminium Co. Ltd. case [National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Ananta Kishore Rout, (2014) 6 SCC 756 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] ).
13. In Km. Renu Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Director, Higher Education, Allahabad & Ors, 1997 (1) AWC 117, this Court considered the question of Equal work equal pay. Relevant paragraph no.8 of it is reproduced hereinafter:
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of ad hocism in the case reported in Rabinarayan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1981 SC 1286. In said judgment, the Apex Court directed the State of Orissa to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned standing counsel that the Scheme under which the petitioners have been appointed is a voluntary scheme and it is upon the incumbent to come forward and accept the voluntary teaching scheme for which they would be paid according to lectures. The further argument of the learned standing counsel that it does not give any right to the petitioners on the post in question is also misconceived. We are of the view that the writ petitions were filed way back in 1988 and 1993 and interim orders were granted and the petitioners are still working as such and earlier also ad hoc teachers were appointed whose services were regularised in due course of time and atleast the petitioners have a right to be considered for regularisation. In a number of cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has indicated equal pay for equal work and has directed the concerned authorities for making payment of same emoluments to the incumbents working in the organization, starting with the case of Ranbir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618. In the case reported in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P., (1986) 1 SCC 637, certain casual labourers working in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution with a grievance that their wages be equated alongwith the wages of regular similarly situated employees in service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court issued its hope and trust that the posts will be sanctioned by the Central Government in different Kendras so that the persons may be regularised and it was further indicated in the judgment that it is not at all desirable that the management and particularly the Central Government should continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which have been in existence for over 12 years. Thereafter, again such matters were considered by the Apex Court in various cases, e.g., Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief. (1986) 1 SCC 639: R. D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration, (1987) 4 SCC 505 and Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, (1987) 4 SCC 634 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court re-affirmed its earlier views. Thereafter, in the case of Jaipal v. State of Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 354, it reiterated its earlier view with regard to equal pay for equal work on the ground of nature of work irrespective whether the incumbent was working on permanent or temporary post. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishakhs Berozagar Sangh and others, AIR 1995 SC 1115, has held that in matters of appointment, even apprentice has a right to be considered on preferential basis as compared to new incumbent.
14. Km. Renu Tiwari (by Division Bench) (supra) fails to satisfy parameters of the doctrine of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” as determined and clarified in Jagjit Singh (supra). Km. Renu Tiwari(supra) was proceeded only considering legal issue without conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the functional equivalence, duties, and responsibilities shared between petitioner and regularly appointed Assistant Professors. Therefore, it was wrongly relied upon.
15. Court also takes note of a judgment passed by a Division Bench in Service Bench No.1175 of 2009 in Dr. Gaurav Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., wherein judgment passed in Km. Renu Tiwari (supra), was simply followed, though a finding was returned that petitioners therein being part time teachers are not at par with regular teacher serving in post Graduate Colleges.
16. Writ Petition No.37014 of 1999 (Uccha Shikshit Yuva Kalyan Samiti and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) also follows Km. Renu Tiwari (supra).
17. Division Bench in Service Bench No.284 of 2011, Dr. Mahendra Upadhyay S/o Shri Ram Mani Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. was disposed of on basis of Gaurav Mishra (supra). Both above judgments also do not consider case of equal work in terms of Jagjit Singh (supra) as such reliance was wrongly placed on these judgments.
18. In view of above, the issue of equal work equal pay was not determined as required to be in consideration in terms of Jagjit Singh (supra), therefore, also a case of Review is made out.
19. On basis of above, following issues were involved in present case for consideration but not considered in earlier round of litigation.
(i) Applicability of principles of equal work equal pay that whether petitioners are working at par with regular appointees/counterparts could be decided only after exchange of pleadings, whereas judgments under review was denied without exchange of pleadings.
(ii) Whether petitioners are entitled for minimum pay scale as recommended by 7th Pay Commission without considering about its financial implications;
(iii) Even if petitioners were getting minimum pay scale as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission, whether they would automatically be entitled for minimum pay scale as recommended by 7th Pay Commission of said post.
(iv) There is no pleading that petitioners were already benefited of minimum pay scale in terms of 6th Pay Commission.
20. Learned counsel for writ petitioners/opposite parties have vehemently supported the judgment under review that all above issues were already settled and petitioners are already getting benefit of minimum pay scale of 6th Pay Commission, therefore, there was no illegality to grant minimum pay scale in terms of 7th Pay Commission.
21. I have considered the above submissions and finds that a case of review is made out since there is no consideration as to whether petitioners are discharging duties similar to regular appointees or not. In this regard it would be appropriate to refer few para of Dr. Anika Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Ors., 2018:AHC:160914-DB :-
In the judgement of Jagjit Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has held that temporary employee (described as work charge, daily wage, casual, Adhoc, and contractual) would be entitled to the regular scale of pay as paid to regular employees. What has been held by the Supreme Court is 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 at par with the minimum of pay scale of regularly engaged government employee holding the same post. In the present case what we notice is that in the regular pay scale of 8000 – 13,500 the minimum pay was Rs. 8000/- but the petitioner was also being paid 50% towards D.A. which after adding other emoluments comes to Rs.19,680/-, which is more than the middle point of the revised pay scale and is more than the minimum of the pay scale.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the persons who were selected against the advertisement no. 3 of 2010, placing reliance on the judgement of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Vishal Chand (supra), filed their own writ petitions, which are as under:-
(1) Writ petition no. 40846 of 2014 (Dr. Dharam Singh Vs State of U.P. and others)
(2) Writ petition no. 12301 of 2018 (Smt. Shilpi Uttam Vs State of U.P. and others)
(3) Writ petition no.12299 of 2018 (Dr. Ekta Khare Vs State of U.P. and others)
(4) Writ petition no. 12296 of 2018 (Dr. Shalini Verma Vs State of U.P. and others)
The above writ petitions have been allowed by the Division Bench of this Court in the light of the directions given by the Court in the case of Vishal Chand (supra).
We have gone through the orders of the Division Bench given in the above referred cases and we find that in none of the cases the Division Bench has dealt with the Self Finance Scheme under which those petitioners have been appointed nor has it considered the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) even though the advertisement no. 3 of 2010 clearly mentions that the advertisement was for contractual appointment against vacant posts running under the Self Finance Scheme and that the emoluments would be admissible as fixed by the Finance Committee of the University in accordance with the Government Order dated 4.2.2000. The Division Bench has not considered the Self Finance Scheme or the Government Order dated 4.2.2000 and therefore, those judgments have no binding precedence in the present case.
So far as the judgment in the case of Vishal Chand (Supra) is concerned, we have already discussed the same above and we may also add that in the advertisement in that case, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit, there is a note which mentions that all the above posts relate to Self Finance Courses but the government orders relating to self-finance courses have not been taken into consideration by the Division Bench while deciding Vishal Chand (supra). We may, however, hasten to add that the Court may not have been required to deal with the Government Orders relating to Self Finance Scheme because the writ petition of Vishal Chand (supra) was allowed solely on the ground that the respondents had acted illegally and in a discriminatory fashion between Vishal Chand and Dr. Varsha Gupta by granting Vishal Chand a consolidated pay of Rs. 9000/- per month but granting a regular scale of pay of Rs. 8000-13,500/- to Dr. Varsha Gupta although both had been selected against the same advertisement, same selection, in the same recruitment process and by the same criteria, therefore, in our opinion, the judgment of Vishal Chand (supra) is also not a binding precedent in the present case.
Therefore, on a conspectus of facts of the present cases and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the above writ petitions and the same are accordingly,dismissed.
22. Court also takes note that matter can be decided only after exchange of pleadings. Otherwise also, there are large number of judgements passed by Supreme Court that declaration of equal work equal pay is not a fundamental right. For reference relevant paragraph 17 of judgment of State of M.P. v. R.D. Sharma, (2022) 13 SCC 320 is reproduced hereinafter:
17. It may be noted that this Court has consistently held that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. This is because such job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore, it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of pay scales to be best left to an expert body. Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post, and that the court’s interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues. A beneficial reference of the observations made in this regard in Secy., Finance Deptt. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn. [Secy., Finance Deptt. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn., 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 157] be made. As held in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government.
23. Accordingly, it is fit case to review the judgment and order dated 13.2.2019, since there are multiple error on face of record as referred above, therefore, CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No.86 of 2021 is allowed and accordingly CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATIONS DEFECTIVE Nos.- 241 of 2025, 34 of 2026, 40 of 2026 and 42 of 2026 are also allowed.
24. Accordingly Order dated 13.2.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.26100 of 2018 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number.
25. Accordingly, order dated 12.3.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.3949 of 2019 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number.
26. Accordingly, order dated 4.4.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.5048 of 2019 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number.
27. Accordingly, order dated 28.3.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.4462 of 2019 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number.
28. Accordingly, order dated 25.4.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6389 of 2019 is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number.
29. All above referred writ petitions along with Writ Petition Nos.19528 of 2025 and 19625 of 2025 be listed after six weeks for final hearing before appropriate bench.
30. Court will also consider effect of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors Vs The State of Gujarat & ors; 2025 INSC 1026.
31. Meanwhile, State will file a consolidated counter affidavit within 3 weeks and Writ Petitioners will be at liberty to file independent Rejoinder affidavits within 3 weeks thereafter.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
April 2, 2026
SB
Â
Â