Supreme Court: equal pay doctrine cannot be applied mechanically

The core issue is whether the 'equal pay for equal work' doctrine applies mechanically or if differences in experience and recruitment mode justify a pay disparity.

Who it concerns: Appellants: G.P. Sangeetha and others (directly recruited HSST, Jr. teachers); Respondents: State of Kerala and others; Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta.

What the court decided

• The Court held that the 'equal pay for equal work' doctrine cannot be applied mechanically.
• The Court ruled that experience and the mode of appointment (promotion/transfer vs. direct recruitment) constitute a valid differentia to justify pay differences.
• The Court affirmed that the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala was correct in reversing the Single Judge's order that had granted the appellants full-time pay scales.
• The Court noted that the appellants (direct recruits) are 'freshers' whereas the promoted teachers had prior service as full-time teachers, justifying the retention of their status and benefits.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'REPORTABLE'.
• The Court distinguished between the legal interpretation of equal pay in the 20th century (broader anti-exploitation principle) and the 21st century (strict test based on service rules, recruitment source, and experience).
• The Court cited that the Special Leave Petition in 'State of West Bengal v. Anirban Ghosh' was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16th July, 2024.