A chairman earning less than his secretary: How Telangana High Court rectified years-old pay injustice to former biodiversity board head

The petitioner argued that this stagnation was discriminatory, especially since chairpersons in states like Kerala, Gujarat, and Uttarakhand, as well as the National Biodiversity Authority, had received the revised scales. The petitioner’s counsel also pointed out that the member secretary, who worked under the petitioner, was drawing higher pay than the chairman himself.

Doctrine of parity becomes relevant

The question before the court was if the exclusion of the petitioner from the benefit of the revised pay structure, despite discharge of statutory functions identical to those of similarly placed Chairpersons in other States, can be sustained in law.

The court held that once a statutory post involving high-level responsibilities is created, the remuneration attached thereto must bear a reasonable nexus to the dignity of the office and the nature of the duties discharged.

“The state must act as a model employer ensuring fairness and adequate compensation and cannot act as a parsimonious employer in matters affecting public offices of statutory importance,” the court remarked.

The bench noted that the doctrine of parity becomes relevant, as the petitioner, through similarly situated and discharging comparable functions under the same statutory framework, “has been subjected to differential treatment without any intelligible basis”.

“Article 14 of the Constitution permits classification only where it rests on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved; however, no such rationale has been shown for excluding the petitioner from the benefit of pay revision while extending it to similarly placed statutory functionaries elsewhere,” the court stated.

Invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work, the court added: “Persons performing identical or substantially similar duties cannot be denied parity in pay merely on the basis of the mode or source of appointment.” The court stated that the principle applies with equal force to statutory appointments where the functions, responsibilities, and accountability are comparable.

The court concluded that the denial of the revised pay scale not only violated Articles 14 and 16 “but also impinged upon the Right to Dignified Remuneration implicit in Article 21 as recognised under service jurisprudence.”

The chief secretaries of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and other respondents were directed to revise Dr Hampaiah’s pay to the scale of Rs 80,000 per month plus allowances, effective from February 5, 2009, through the end of his tenure in 2015. The court has ordered the disbursement of these arrears within twelve weeks.