Equal Pay For Equal Work Not Automatic Where Recruitment Qualifications Differ; Delhi High Court Rejects MCD Lab Technicians' Pay Parity Plea Against Central Govt Staff
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan, has held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be claimed as an automatic constitutional right and requires a complete identity between the compared cadres in terms of recruitment criteria, qualifications, and responsibilities. The court dismissed a petition brought by an association of laboratory technicians employed with a municipal corporation, who sought pay parity with their counterparts serving under the Central Government. The court found that the admitted disparity in minimum educational qualifications — matriculation for the municipal employees versus a science degree for central government counterparts — constituted a valid and rational basis for differential pay treatment, rendering the claim for parity legally unsustainable.
The petition was filed by an association representing laboratory technicians employed in hospitals of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The grievance arose from the claim that these employees were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5000–8000 from January 1, 1996, based on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The petitioners argued that their entitlement was supported by parity with laboratory technicians working under the Central Government, including those in institutions such as the National Institute of Communicable Diseases and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
The matter was initially raised before this Court in 2005 and later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2017. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ application in November 2018, holding that the claim for conferment of the 5th CPC pay scale was not substantiated. A review application filed in 2019 was also dismissed. The petitioners contended that denial of the pay scale was arbitrary and discriminatory, while the respondents submitted that Central Pay Commission recommendations were not automatically applicable to MCD employees and highlighted differences in educational qualifications between the two groups.
The Court recorded: “It is well-settled that the scope of judicial review in matters of pay fixation and parity is extremely circumscribed. The determination of pay scales is a complex exercise involving a delicate balancing of factors, including the nature of duties, responsibilities, and, crucially, educational qualifications.”
The Bench stated: “The doctrine of ‘Equal Pay For Equal Work’ does not operate in the abstract. The Supreme Court, in State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, has authoritatively held that parity in pay cannot be claimed merely on the basis of similarity in designation or nature of duties when there exist material differences in educational qualifications, recruitment processes, or service conditions.”
It further observed: “To successfully claim equal pay for equal work, the Petitioners must establish a ‘wholesale identity’ with the compared cadre. Mere similarity in designation or a broad overlap in job functions is insufficient if there exists a fundamental difference in the recruitment criteria or the minimum educational standards prescribed by the Recruitment Rules.”
The Court recorded: “In the present case, the difference in the minimum educational qualifications between Laboratory Technicians employed by the MCD and those employed under the Central Government is admitted. While the MCD’s Recruitment Rules prescribe Matriculation as the minimum educational qualification, the Central Government mandates a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) degree. Such a distinction in the entry-level academic requirements constitutes an ‘intelligible differentia’.”
It stated: “Once such a material distinction is established, the claim for automatic parity in pay scales cannot be sustained as a matter of constitutional right. The principle of Equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal. It can only be invoked when there is a complete and wholesale identity between the groups in terms of recruitment, qualifications, and responsibilities.”
The Court also recorded: “The contention that the recommendations of the 5th CPC regarding qualifications were only prospective also does not advance the Petitioners’ case. The implementation of Pay Commission recommendations is a matter of policy, subject to adoption by the competent authority and alignment with existing recruitment rules and cadre structures.”
It observed: “A mere administrative intent or proposal to amend rules does not crystallize into an enforceable legal right until the statute is actually amended.”
Finally, the Bench stated: “While a stagnant pay hierarchy is an administrative anomaly that requires correction, the remedy does not lie in the Court granting a specific higher scale. As correctly observed by the Tribunal, such anomalies fall within the exclusive domain of the Anomalies Committee or the Pay Commission.”
The Court directed: “In view of the admitted difference in educational qualifications in recruitment criteria between Laboratory Technicians employed by the MCD and those under the Central Government, and in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, this Court finds no merit in the Petitioners’ claim for pay parity.”
“The impugned orders dated 21.11.2018 and 25.04.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ramesh Rawat and Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Advs.
For the Respondents: Dr. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika Thakur and Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advs.
Case Title: Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association (Regd.) and Anr vs Union of India and Ors
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:839-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12205/2019
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Amit Mahajan
