RANDHIR SINGH

v/s
UNION OF INDIA

NAME: MITALI PATIL

PROFESSOR: PRAJNEE SAHOO
SUBJECT: LEGAL LANGUAGE
CLASS: TYBLS
SEMESTER: 5
ROLL NO.: 60
NAME OF THE CASE Randhir Singh v. Union of India
CITATIONS 1982 AIR 879, 1982 SCR (3) 298
PETITIONER Randhir Singh
RESPONDENT Union of India
DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT 22nd February, 1982

BENCH / JUDGES Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) Reddy, O.

Chinnappa (J) Sen, A.P. (J) Islam,
Baharul (J)
STATUTES INVOLVED Constitution of India
IMPORTANT ARTICLES / SECTIONS Articles 14, 16, 39, 32

BACKGROUND

The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not just an abstract idea, but a substantial idea. There
are different circumstances in a service, with varying qualifications for each grade. The higher
grade often serves as a positive avenue for officers of the lower grade, with higher qualifications
and experience, based on length of service. Such differences reasonably withstand the
classification of officers into two grades with different scales of pay. Applying the principle of
equal pay for equal work to these grades would be an abstract doctrine and would not be valid to
them under Article 14.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, asserting that all government
drivers should obtain equal pay, just like other government drivers of heavy vehicles. The
petitioner requests the appropriate application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, which
is guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner privileges that
despite the abstract nature of this doctrine, it should still be directed to ensure that all citizens have
an equal opportunity when it comes to employment or appointment under any certainty.

INTRODUCTION

The idea of "equal pay for equal work" ensures that everyone is enabled to the same salary for the
same job, regardless of their gender, caste, or religion. This is done to avoid discrimination in the
workplace. This legal principle is broadly accepted in India, where laws have been put in place to
address the issue. Article 39 of the Indian Constitution, when read with Article 14, relates to this
view. Additionally, it is a matter of workers' rights. The Equal Remuneration Act of 1976 requires
equal pay for all genders workers and prohibits gender discrimination. This idea is also sanctioned
at an international level. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the
European Social Charter, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and the Inter

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

The Constitution of India's Preamble aims to guarantee social and economic justice for all its
citizens. Article-39(d) guarantees equivalent pay for equal work for both men and women. This
principle is not a Fundamental Right but a Directive Principle of State Policy. It serves as a
recommendation for both the Centre and the State Government. Although this principle was
initially considered inept of being implemented in the court of law, it was recognized in the case
of Mackinnon Mackenzie's.

In the case of State of Punjab & Ors v Jagjit Singh & Ors, the court held that employees involved
in the same work, even if appointed on a temporary basis, cannot be paid less than permanent staff
members acting the same duties and responsibilities. This principle applies to daily wage
employees and those chosen on a casual basis as well. In a welfare state, it is oppressive,
suppressive and coercive in nature to wage such employees less. It constitutes an act of exploitative
enslavement.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees
Association v. State of Karnataka, stated that Article-16 and 14's equality clause of the Constitution
should be understood while keeping in mind the Preamble and Article-39(d). The principle of
equal pay for equal work is resulting from these articles and applies in cases of unequal pay based
on classification or irrational classification.

In the case of State of Haryana v Rajpal Sharma5 Supreme Court held that those teachers who are
employed in private assisted schools in the State of Haryana are entitled to get the same amount
of salary and affection allowances as it is paid to the teachers employed in the Government schools.
National Labour Organization’s Constitution all underline the same policy.

STATUTES

 Article-14 of Constitution of India

The petitioner claimed that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution was violated because it
requires the State not to refute any person equality before the law and to provide equal
protection under the law. The petitioner further argued that no discrepancy should be made
between different groups of people as it will eventually lead to discrimination. The Apex
Court agreed with the petitioner's argument that there was a difference in the pay scale of
the salaries. The Court held that people in Delhi Force make the same duties and functions
as any other department under the government and no differentiation in the pay scale
should be made. A state can set diverse pay scales for different employment posts based
on educational trainings and responsibilities related to the post. Equality must be done
between equals, as unequal people cannot claim equality. Even if the duties and
responsibilities obligatory for two different posts differ, and there is a difference in
responsibilities, the principle of equal pay for equal work will not be pertinent. If people
belong to the same class but differ in their educational qualifications, then treating them
differently will be acceptable and reasonable.
 Article-16 of Constitution of India
To fully understand the concept of equal pay for equal work, which is clearly mentioned
in Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, the following essential ingredients should be kept
in mind:
1. Social justice
2. Equality among unequal individuals
Firstly, social justice infers that if there is an equal distribution of employment
opportunities or appointments of any citizen of the country in any state office, it will
indorse equality amongst all, leading to social justice. Secondly, it is essential to have
equality among all layers of society to reduce inequality in employment and ensure equal
pay for equal work, as mentioned under Article (1) and (2). Therefore, strict application of
this law is necessary to attain this goal.
 Article-39(d) of Constitution of India
As per Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, individuals executing equal or similar
work should be paid equally, regardless of their gender. The principle of "Equal Pay for
Equal Work" is laid down in Article-39(d), which needs to be read along with the equality
clauses specified in Article-14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is necessary to note that there
must be a reasonable classification that establishes a connection between the objectives
and how they can be attained. Different pay scales for individuals acting the same work
can only be justified if there is a difference in the flora fauna of the work in terms of
responsibilities and commitment.
 Article-32 of Constitution of India
Preparations for implementation of rights conferred by this Part :
1) The right to move the Supreme Court by suitable proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights deliberated by this Part is guaranteed.
2) The Supreme Court shall have authority to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
 warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the implementation of
any of the rights conferred by this Part.
3) Without preconception to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1)
and (2), Parliament may by law authorize any other court to exercise within the
local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers by the Supreme Court under
clause ( 2 ).
4) The right definite by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.

FACTS

The petitioner is a police official of the Delhi Police, which is a branch of the Government of
Delhi. He was primarily hired as a driver by the Delhi Police after being released from the army.
Later on, the Delhi Police selected him to hire ex-military drivers, and he was asked to undergo a
driving license test. Additionally, he was asked to obtain a private heavy vehicle driver's license.
As a driver (constable), he received the rank of Constable and became a member of the unit, which
requires compulsory discipline in the Delhi Police. Similar obligations apply to couriers and other
drivers employed by the Delhi Government. The pay scale for unregistered drivers in the Delhi
Police is Rs 210-270, while for registered drivers, it is Rs 225-308. The salary range for Railway
Protection Corps is 260-400, and it is less for non-secretarial offices in Delhi, while it is more for
secretarial offices. The appellant and other drivers disputed that although they held positions in
different departments, they should receive the same reward because they perform the same or
nearly similar duties. They believe that the third Pay Commission did not keep in mind their
situation individually, and their pay scale should be the same as that of HGV drivers in other
departments. After the authorities failed to fulfil their demands, they decided to apply for an order
under Article 32 of the Constitution.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

According to the grievance, the Salary Board fails to deliberate drivers as a separate group when
establishing police officers' pay scales. The board also disregards to take in account the special
factors given to drivers in other agencies. The petitioner argues that these considerations should
be extended to drivers and constables as well. To discourse this issue, the petitioner filed an action
in the public interest under Article 324 of the Constitution, working for a fair and equal wage scale
for all government drivers in the state, as well as drivers of heavy vehicles in other states. The
petitioner accentuates the importance of executing equal pay for equal work.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER

1) Learned counsel for the appellant opposes that since it was claimed that Article 14 is only
an abstract idea and has nothing to do with the equal pay for equal work principle, it has
been violated.
2) In the instant matter, it is an self-confessed position that Articles 14 and 16 ensure
fundamental rights to equality before the law and equal opportunity in employment with
the government, and Article 32 calls on the response to integrity these obligations.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner succumbed that Equal pay for equal work is proclaimed
a Directive Policy under Article-39(d) of the Indian Constitution.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT

1) Learned counsel for the respondent presented that if the petitioner is only a constable, there
is no such position in the Delhi Police Force, and there is no such class of drivers.
2) Learned counsel for the respondent proposed that for the purpose of setting the pay scale,
no such comparison can be made between the various departments of the Delhi Police
Force; instead, the pay scale is set after carefully bearing in mind all relevant factors.
 3) Learned counsel for the respondent acquiesced that as an abstract notion that has nothing
to do with the aforesaid article, Article-14 has nothing to do with the idea of equal pay for
equal work..
4) Learned counsel for the respondent tendered that there is no question of any hostile
discrimination.

JUDGEMENT AT A GLANCE

1. Article-14 is an abstract doctrine that has indirectly been pragmatic here as a

constitutional goal.
2. Article-16 is constitutional and the equality clause should have some physicalness if
equal work really means equal pay.
3. Article-39(d) is perceptible from the article for the doctrine of “Equal Pay for Equal
Work”.

All the above-mentioned articles can be enforced by the court of law in the cases of unsatisfactory
pay scales in the cases of irrational classification.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENTS

The Indian Constitution does not clearly state that "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is a fundamental
right. However, it is well-thought-out as a constitutional goal under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d).

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is amendable in court if there is an unfair pay scale based on
unreasonable classification. Even if the pay scale is different for acting similar tasks for the same
organization or employer, individuals holding similar jobs should not be treated in a different way
in terms of their salary if all things are equal.

The idea of "equal pay for equal work" is a substantive concept, according to the court, rather than
an abstract one. Within a service, different grades may exist, each needful different qualifications
to join and serving as a elevation path for officers of lower grades. Classifying officers into two
groups with distinct pay schedules is rationally supported by higher permits or experience based
on length of service. If applied to individuals, the concept of equal pay for equal work would be
an impersonal notion that would not be covered by Article 14.

The court also stated that many socialist systems across the world uphold the idea of "Equal Pay
for Equal Work." The International Labour Organization recognizes it as an achievement to change
conditions that cause dissatisfaction so great that the peace and harmony of the world are in danger,
such as injustice, difficulty, suffering and privation for a large number of people.

BRIEF JUDGEMENT

Supreme Court held that Constitution of India does not expressly declared the principle of “Equal
Pay for Equal Work” as a fundamental right but it is mentioned as a constitutional goals under
Article-14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution which are enforceable by the court of law in case if
there is inequality in payment scale on the basis of irrational classification, even if there pay scale
is different for doing similar tasks under the same organization or the employer.

CONCLUSION

These days, there are numerous examples of discriminatory pay scales for the same job, which has
raised concerns about the "Compensation Gap" or uneven pay. Currently, India lacks a
comprehensive and transparent wage policy across all economic sectors, which has made the
question of future demand for equal pay a matter of worry. Equal pay in this context refers to
additional perks and allowances in addition to the basic salary. Articles 39(d) and 41 of the Indian
Constitution recognise the concepts of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and "Right to Work" for both
men and women. These articles have been inserted as DPSPs and will act as recommendations for
the Indian Central and State governments to consider while formulating laws and policies. Even
on the legislative front, efforts have been made; the most notable example is the Equal
Remuneration Act of 1976. Through Section 4, the Act emphasizes equal compensation for equal
effort and forbids employers from reversing pay scales to achieve balance.

An abstract principle known as Article 14 has been used as a constitutional objective. Since equal
effort results in equal compensation, the equality language in Article-16 should have some
significance. Article-39(d) can be linked to the principle defining "Equal Pay for Equal Work." In
cases of uneven pay scales or unreasonable categorisation, any of the aforementioned provisions
may be enforced by a court of law. According to the Supreme Court, the idea of "Equal Pay for
Equal Work" was not enshrined in the Indian Constitution as a fundamental right but rather as a
constitutional goal. Article-39(d), a Directive Principle of the State Policy, guarantees "Equal Pay
for Equal Labor for both Men and Women," i.e., equal pay for the same amount of work performed
by both sexes. It went on to say that just as fundamental rights sometimes need to be read and
interpreted, so too must Article-16 be read and interpreted to mean that the state must ensure
equality in hiring practices for all positions that fall within its purview. Contrarily, Article 14 of
the Constitution provides that no state shall deny to any of its citizens the equality before the law
and the equal protection of the law.

REFERENCES

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]
Directive,an%20adequate%20means%20of%20livelihood.

[Link]