35 years on, Himachal High Court orders equal pay for art teacher hired on lower scale

The court observed that the petitioner was at least entitled to parity with the junior tailoring mistress in the Rural Development Department (Rs 1,350–2,400) from her initial date of appointment, along with the corresponding revisions w.e.f. January 1, 1996, and January 1, 2006.

Petitioner sought parity in pay

The petitioner, Vijay Rani Gupta, completed a two-year Diploma in Tailoring from ITI, Shimla in 1982 and registered with the Employment Exchange. In 1991, her name was sponsored, and she was interviewed by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) for the post of junior tailoring mistress/master in the Rural Development Department.

Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner held the required educational qualifications for the post of junior tailoring mistress.

Although selected, she was instead appointed as an art/craft teacher in the Agriculture Department on October 16, 1991, in a lower pay scale of Rs 950–1,800. After joining, she noticed significant pay anomalies across different departments for identical roles requiring the same qualifications and recruitment procedures.

The petitioner submitted multiple representations starting in 1994, pointing out that she performed the same duties and held the same qualifications, and requested parity with similar posts. Her department supported her request, but the state government rejected it in 1995, 2008, and 2009.

The government reasoned that her pay scale was revised according to standard rules based on her initial appointment offer, which she had accepted, and that Himachal Pradesh follows the Punjab pattern.

Aggrieved by the rejection orders dated April 10, 2008, and May 6, 2009, she filed a petition in court seeking parity under the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work”. She prayed for the pay scale of Rs 1,350–2,400 from her date of appointment, along with revised pay scales from January 1, 1996, and January 1, 2006, plus back-arrears and interest.

Dept can’t justify arbitrary disparity: Order

The court noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner held the required educational qualifications for the post of junior tailoring mistress/master. The recruitment procedure through the HPPSC was identical, and she was initially interviewed for the post in the Rural Development Department before being placed in the Agriculture Department.

The state government failed to deny or dispute the fact that the petitioner performed duties and responsibilities that were qualitatively and quantitatively comparable to those of similar posts in other departments.

Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Randhir Singh v Union of India, the court held that “equal pay for equal work” is not a mere slogan but a constitutional goal under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

“Rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since the pay scale granted to the petitioner had been revised to Rs 3,120-5,160, she is not entitled to the pay scale of Rs 4,400-7,000 and also the pre-revised pay scale of Rs 1,365- 2,410, is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and as such the impugned orders passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner are quashed,” the court held.