1. Meaning and constitutional foundation

The principle of “equal pay for equal work” means that employees who perform substantially the same work, with comparable duties, responsibilities, qualifications, skill, effort and working conditions, should not receive discriminatory differences in remuneration without a legally sustainable justification.

In India, the principle is principally derived from:

• Article 14 — equality before law and protection against arbitrary discrimination.
• Article 16 — equality of opportunity in public employment.
• Article 39(d) — directs the State to secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
• Article 141 — Supreme Court declarations of law are binding on courts.
• Labour and wage legislation may provide additional protections concerning wages and non-discrimination.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that Article 39(d) by itself is a Directive Principle, but the principle of equal pay can become enforceable through the equality guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 where discriminatory pay classification is established.

2. What employers must examine for compliance

An organisation should not determine equal-pay compliance merely by comparing job titles.

A proper comparison should examine:

1. Nature of duties
2. Actual functions performed
3. Level of responsibility
4. Required skill and expertise
5. Educational/professional qualifications
6. Experience requirements
7. Working conditions
8. Degree of supervision
9. Decision-making authority
10. Reliability and accountability
11. Quality, accuracy and dexterity required
12. Recruitment and selection process
13. Seniority and experience
14. Location and other objectively relevant factors
15. Whether employees belong to the same establishment/employer
16. Whether a different pay structure has a legitimate and rational basis

The Supreme Court has specifically warned that job nomenclature alone is insufficient. Two employees called “Manager,” “Technician,” “Carpenter,” etc. may perform materially different work.

3. “Equal work” does not mean literally identical work

The doctrine is generally concerned with substantially similar work of equal value, rather than requiring every task to be identical.

For example:

Thus, equal pay is not an automatic consequence of similar-looking work.

4. Equal pay versus equal remuneration

The principle also has an important gender-equality dimension.

Historically, the constitutional language specifically refers to equal pay for men and women. Modern equal-pay compliance therefore requires employers to ensure that compensation structures do not create unjustified gender-based disparities for substantially equivalent work.

A compliant compensation system should examine:

• basic salary;
• allowances;
• variable pay;
• bonuses;
• incentives;
• commissions;
• benefits;
• overtime-related compensation;
• stock/equity benefits where relevant;
• joining/retention benefits;
• promotion-linked remuneration.

An employer should be able to explain significant compensation differences using objective, documented factors, rather than relying upon gender, arbitrary classification or historical assumptions.

5. Equal pay and temporary/contractual employees

One of the most important developments in Indian jurisprudence concerns temporary and contractual workers.

The Supreme Court has held that the fact that an employee is temporary, casual, ad hoc or contractual does not by itself eliminate an equal-pay claim.

The critical question is whether the temporary employee is actually performing the same or substantially similar duties and responsibilities as the regular employee and satisfies the relevant qualification requirements.

The Constitution Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh particularly clarified this principle.

However, this does not mean that every contractual employee automatically becomes entitled to the salary or every benefit of a regular employee. The comparison must first establish genuine equivalence of work and the other relevant factors.

6. Employer compliance framework

A practical employer should implement an Equal Pay Compliance Framework.

Step 1 — Create job families

Group positions according to:

• job function;
• skill level;
• responsibility;
• qualification;
• organisational level.

Step 2 — Conduct job evaluation

Evaluate the actual job rather than relying only upon designation.

For example:

Job A: UI Designer

• design responsibility;
• user research;
• prototyping;
• stakeholder interaction;
• technical knowledge.

Job B: Graphic Designer

• visual production;
• brand execution;
• marketing collateral;
• lower technical responsibility.

Even if both employees are “designers,” their work may have different value and responsibility.

Step 3 — Establish salary bands

Each job grade should have:

• minimum salary;
• midpoint;
• maximum salary;
• objective progression criteria.

Step 4 — Identify unexplained pay gaps

HR should compare:

• gender;
• tenure;
• grade;
• location;
• experience;
• performance;
• qualifications;
• job responsibility;
• employment status.

Step 5 — Investigate anomalies

A pay difference should have a legitimate explanation.

Examples of potentially legitimate factors include:

• greater responsibility;
• additional qualifications;
• recognised experience;
• objectively measured performance;
• difficult working conditions;
• scarcity of specialised skills;
• different job grades.

Step 6 — Correct unjustified disparities

Where an unexplained disparity is identified, the employer should consider:

• salary correction;
• retrospective adjustment where legally appropriate;
• compensation restructuring;
• correction of salary bands;
• benefits equalisation;
• payroll-system correction.

Step 7 — Maintain documentation

The employer should retain:

• job descriptions;
• job-evaluation records;
• salary-band methodology;
• compensation decisions;
• promotion records;
• performance documentation;
• recruitment criteria;
• reasons for exceptional salary decisions.

This documentation becomes particularly important if an employee alleges discriminatory pay.

7. Equal-pay audits

A periodic pay-equity audit should compare compensation across comparable positions.

A useful audit matrix is:

8. Important limitation: no mechanical application

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that equal pay for equal work cannot be mechanically applied.

In Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the Court explained that differences in educational qualifications, responsibilities and the qualitative nature of work can justify different pay scales.

Similarly, State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh emphasised that equal pay requires work of equal value, and that reasonable classification can justify different pay.

Therefore:

Same designation ≠ automatically same pay.

and equally:

Different designation ≠ automatically different pay.

The actual work and objective circumstances matter.

9. Six important Indian case laws

1. Randhir Singh v. Union of India

(1982) 1 SCC 618

Principle

This is one of the foundational Supreme Court decisions on equal pay.

The Court recognised that the principle of equal pay for equal work can be derived from Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39(d).

The case concerned differential remuneration for employees performing substantially similar duties.

Compliance significance

Public employers cannot create arbitrary distinctions in remuneration when employees perform substantially comparable work.

HR lesson: Pay differences should have a rational and legally defensible basis.

2. Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P.

(1986) 1 SCC 637

Principle

The Supreme Court applied equal-pay principles to temporary/casual employees performing work similar to employees in the regular establishment.

The Court rejected the idea that temporary status alone could justify paying substantially less where the employees were performing the same type of work.

Compliance significance

An employer cannot simply say:

“This employee is temporary, therefore lower pay is automatically justified.”

Actual duties and responsibilities must be examined.

The principle was subsequently discussed and reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh.

3. Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD

(1986) 1 SCC 639

Principle

The Court considered the position of temporary employees performing work comparable to employees on the permanent establishment.

Equal-pay principles were applied where the nature of duties justified comparison.

Compliance significance

The case reinforces the distinction between:

• employment status, and
• nature and value of work.

Temporary status is not by itself a complete answer to an equal-pay claim.

4. Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences

(1989) 2 SCC 235

Principle

The Supreme Court refused an equal-pay claim where the relevant positions differed in educational qualifications and qualitative responsibilities.

The Court emphasised that comparison requires consideration of:

• duties;
• functions;
• qualifications;
• quality of work;
• responsibilities.

It also recognised that different employers and different institutional circumstances can make comparisons inappropriate.

Compliance significance

This case is particularly important for employers because it demonstrates that equal pay does not mean uniform pay for every employee performing superficially similar professional work.

5. State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh

(2006) 9 SCC 321

Principle

The Court examined several equal-pay claims and emphasised that the doctrine is not an abstract or mechanical rule.

Relevant factors include:

• quality of work;
• skill;
• accuracy;
• dexterity;
• responsibility;
• qualifications;
• experience;
• recruitment method.

Reasonable classification can justify different pay scales.

Compliance significance

Employers should undertake a genuine job-value assessment, rather than relying upon job titles.

6. State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh

(2016) 7 SCC 598

Principle

This is one of the most significant modern Supreme Court decisions on equal pay.

The Court held that temporary employees—including daily-wage, casual, ad hoc and contractual employees—can claim pay parity where they perform the same duties and responsibilities as regular employees and satisfy the relevant requirements.

The Court specifically held that temporary employees in the case were entitled to wages at the level of the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to the corresponding post, subject to the legal requirements established by the judgment.

Compliance significance

Employers should not use the following as automatic justifications for lower remuneration:

• “contract employee”;
• “temporary worker”;
• “daily wage worker”;
• “ad hoc employee.”

The employer should first determine whether the work is genuinely comparable.

10. Principles emerging from the case law

The cases collectively establish several important propositions:

A. Equal pay is constitutionally grounded

Articles 14 and 16, read with Article 39(d), form the principal constitutional framework.

B. The doctrine is enforceable in appropriate cases

It is not merely an aspirational HR principle. Where discriminatory classification violates constitutional equality requirements, courts can grant relief.

C. Work must be genuinely comparable

The comparison involves more than physical similarity of tasks.

D. Job title is not decisive

Actual duties, responsibility and job value are important.

E. Qualifications matter

Different educational or professional qualifications may justify different remuneration.

F. Responsibility matters

Greater accountability or decision-making authority can justify higher remuneration.

G. Experience can matter

Experience and seniority may provide a rational basis for differentiation in appropriate circumstances.

H. Temporary status alone is insufficient

Temporary or contractual employees may qualify for pay parity when the required equivalence is established.

I. Different employers can complicate comparison

An employee generally cannot establish an equal-pay claim merely by pointing to a similarly named employee working for a separate organisation.

J. Financial considerations do not automatically justify discrimination

An employer should not simply state that paying equal wages is financially inconvenient if the underlying legal requirements for parity are otherwise established.

11. Compliance risks for employers

An organisation may face disputes where:

• male and female employees performing substantially equivalent work have unexplained salary differences;
• contractual employees perform the same work as regular employees but receive substantially lower wages;
• employees in the same grade receive unexplained salary differences;
• salary negotiation systematically creates unexplained disparities;
• historical salary differences continue without objective justification;
• different pay is based solely on designation;
• employees are classified differently without a rational job-related basis;
• allowances or variable compensation disproportionately benefit one comparable group;
• promotions produce inconsistent salary outcomes;
• recruitment teams have no documented salary-setting methodology.

12. Recommended HR policy

A robust Equal Pay and Pay Equity Policy should contain:

1. Equal-pay commitment.
2. Prohibition on discriminatory compensation.
3. Job-evaluation methodology.
4. Salary-band structure.
5. Objective criteria for starting salary.
6. Promotion and increment criteria.
7. Variable-pay criteria.
8. Gender-pay audit mechanism.
9. Temporary/contract-worker review mechanism.
10. Internal grievance mechanism.
11. Periodic compensation audits.
12. Documentation and record-retention requirements.
13. Corrective-action procedure.
14. Confidentiality protections.
15. Non-retaliation protection for employees raising concerns.

13. Practical compliance checklist

Before fixing compensation:

☐ Identify the employee's job family.
☐ Identify the appropriate grade.
☐ Compare actual duties rather than title alone.
☐ Assess qualifications.
☐ Assess responsibility.
☐ Assess experience.
☐ Assess working conditions.
☐ Review performance criteria.
☐ Identify legitimate reasons for differences.
☐ Document exceptional compensation decisions.

During an annual audit:

☐ Compare employees performing comparable work.
☐ Review gender-related pay differences.
☐ Review contractual versus regular employees.
☐ Review new-hire salary differences.
☐ Review promotion increases.
☐ Review bonuses and incentives.
☐ Investigate unexplained outliers.
☐ Correct unjustified disparities.
☐ Maintain an audit trail.

Conclusion

Equal pay for equal work in India is a principle of substantive equality, not a mechanical requirement that every employee with a similar designation must receive identical remuneration. The central question is whether employees perform substantially comparable work of equal value and whether any difference in remuneration has an objective, rational and legally sustainable basis.

For employers, the safest compliance approach is therefore to establish objective job evaluation, transparent salary bands, documented compensation criteria and periodic pay-equity audits. The jurisprudence, particularly Randhir Singh, Dhirendra Chamoli, Surinder Singh, Mewa Ram Kanojia, Charanjit Singh and Jagjit Singh, demonstrates both sides of the doctrine: unjustified pay discrimination can be challenged, while genuine differences in qualifications, responsibility, experience, recruitment and job value can justify differentiated remuneration.