New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSST), Junior, in Kerala government-aided schools, seeking parity in pay with teachers appointed to the same cadre through transfer or promotion.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that the difference in the mode of recruitment and the prior teaching experience of the two categories constituted a valid basis for prescribing different pay scales. The Court made it clear that mere similarity in duties, qualifications and responsibilities does not, by itself, establish a right to equal pay.
The appeals arose from appointments made through direct recruitment pursuant to a Government Order dated 13 May 1998. The teachers challenged a judgment of the Kerala High Court Division Bench dated 22 March 2011, which had overturned a Single Judge’s decision directing that directly recruited HSST (Junior) teachers be granted the full-time pay scale available to teachers appointed to the same post through transfer or promotion.
Supreme Court Examines Equal Pay Principle
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether two groups belonging to the same cadre could be placed in different pay scales when their qualifications, duties and responsibilities were substantially the same.
The Court noted that teachers appointed through promotion or transfer had already served for several years as full-time permanent teachers in high or lower schools before entering the HSST (Junior) cadre. The higher pay scale extended to them was therefore linked to the status and service conditions they had already acquired.
In contrast, the directly recruited teachers were fresh entrants to the service. The Court held that this distinction could not be ignored while examining their claim for pay parity.
Mere Similarity of Work Not Enough
The Supreme Court revisited the evolution of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, referring to decisions including Randhir Singh v. Union of India, State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu, Government of West Bengal v. Tarun Kumar Roy, State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh and State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee.
The Court observed that the law has moved away from a mechanical approach in which similarity of designation or duties alone was considered sufficient to establish pay parity.
It emphasized that a claim for equal pay must be examined with reference to several factors, including the source of recruitment, qualifications, experience, mode of appointment and nature of duties and responsibilities.
The Bench observed that “a mechanical application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work has to be eschewed.”
The Court further held that Article 14 of the Constitution does not prohibit every form of classification in pay structures. Where the classification is based on a valid and intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, different treatment can be constitutionally permissible.
Prior Teaching Experience Justified Higher Pay
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the prior teaching experience of the teachers appointed through transfer or promotion provided a legitimate basis for differentiating their pay from that of directly recruited teachers.
The Court therefore found that the two categories could not be treated as completely identical for the purpose of pay fixation merely because they ultimately performed duties in the same HSST (Junior) cadre.
The Bench also declined to rely on the Calcutta High Court’s decision in State of West Bengal v. Anirban Ghosh, holding that it was per incuriam to the extent that it was inconsistent with binding Supreme Court precedents, particularly those considered in Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee.
The Supreme Court also clarified that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition against the Calcutta High Court judgment did not compel it to adopt the same view.
Appeals Dismissed
Finding no merit in the teachers’ claims, the Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment dated 22 March 2011 and declined to interfere with the different pay scales applicable to the two categories of HSST (Junior) teachers.
The appeals were accordingly dismissed, and the pending applications were also disposed of.
Case: G.P. Sangeetha and Others Etc. Etc. v. State of Kerala and Others, along with Sharafudden M. v. Indu T.K. and Others
Case Numbers: Civil Appeal Nos. 7565-7567 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No. 9060 of 2011
Citation: 2026 INSC 1004
