The court rules educational qualifications and recruitment criteria as valid grounds for differential pay scales between MCD and Central Government employees.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association seeking pay parity for Laboratory Technicians working in hospitals under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) with those employed by the Central Government. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, reinforces the principle that educational qualifications and recruitment criteria are valid grounds for differentiation in pay scales between cadres.
The petitioners had sought the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (5th CPC) pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 for MCD Laboratory Technicians from January 1, 1996, citing parity with their counterparts in Central Government institutions like the National Institute of Communicable Diseases and All India Institute of Medical Sciences. However, the court found that the educational qualifications required for Laboratory Technicians in MCD hospitals—a 10th Class/Matriculation—were materially different from the Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) degree mandated for Central Government employees.
The bench highlighted that the doctrine of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' does not apply where there is a material difference in educational qualifications or recruitment criteria. Drawing on precedents such as the Supreme Court judgment in State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, the court emphasized that pay parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis of similarity in designation or broadly overlapping duties. A fundamental difference in recruitment criteria or educational standards justifies differential pay structures.
Further, the court addressed the petitioners' contention that the 5th CPC recommendations regarding qualifications were prospective and applicable only to future recruits. It clarified that the implementation of Pay Commission recommendations is a policy matter, contingent upon adoption by the competent authority and alignment with existing recruitment rules and cadre structures. The MCD is not obligated to adopt Central Government pay scales without due consideration of its service rules.
The court also noted that the Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioners' Original Application and Review Application was not perverse or legally untenable. The Tribunal had rightly refrained from issuing directions in the absence of amended recruitment rules, and the issue of anomalies in pay scales fell within the domain of the Anomalies Committee or the Pay Commission.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court found no merit in the petitioners' claim for pay parity and upheld the Tribunal's orders, emphasizing the importance of educational qualifications and recruitment criteria in determining pay scales. The decision reaffirms the judiciary's limited scope in matters of pay fixation and parity, underscoring the need for a holistic approach that considers various factors, including educational qualifications and service conditions.
Bottom Line:
"Equal Pay for Equal Work" principle does not apply where there is a material difference in educational qualifications and recruitment criteria between two cadres.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
