Introduction
The principle of “equal pay for equal work” is an important component of equality in employment under Indian constitutional law. It reflects the idea that employees performing substantially comparable work should not ordinarily be subjected to arbitrary or irrational differences in remuneration.
However, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly clarified that pay parity is not determined merely by comparing job titles or broad similarities in duties. The Court has examined factors such as the nature and quality of work, responsibilities, qualifications, recruitment method, experience and conditions of service.
In its latest decision in G.P. Sangeetha & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 948, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the doctrine cannot be applied mechanically. The Court held that differences in experience arising from different modes of appointment may constitute a legitimate basis for different pay scales.
1. What Does “Equal Pay for Equal Work” Mean?
“Equal pay for equal work” means that where employees perform work that is substantially equal in terms of duties, responsibilities, qualifications, skill, effort and working conditions, an arbitrary difference in remuneration may raise an equality concern.
The principle is closely associated with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
It is also reflected in Article 39(d) of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which directs the State towards securing equal pay for men and women for equal work.
Although Article 39(d) is not itself directly enforceable in the same manner as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has historically considered it alongside Article 14 while developing the jurisprudence of pay parity.
2. The Supreme Court’s Latest Position
In G.P. Sangeetha & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., the Supreme Court considered a claim raised by directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers, Junior (HSST, Jr.) in government-aided schools in Kerala.
The employees sought parity with HSST, Jr. teachers appointed through transfer or promotion, arguing that the two categories performed substantially similar duties and responsibilities.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu rejected the claim for automatic parity and upheld the distinction in pay scales. The Court recognised that the difference in experience between directly recruited employees and employees appointed through promotion or transfer could constitute a valid basis for classification.
The judgment therefore reinforces an important proposition:
Similarity of duties, by itself, does not automatically establish a legal entitlement to identical pay.
The Court emphasised that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work must not be applied mechanically.
3. Why Experience Matters
One of the significant aspects of the latest ruling is the Court’s consideration of experience as a relevant factor in determining pay structure.
Employees may perform similar functions but enter a particular cadre through different routes.
For example:
• one employee may be appointed through direct recruitment;
• another may enter through promotion;
• another may be appointed through transfer after serving in another post.
Such employees may have different levels of prior service experience, responsibilities or institutional knowledge.
The Supreme Court has recognised that experience can constitute an intelligible basis for classification, provided that the distinction has a rational relationship with the service structure and the objectives of the classification.
Accordingly, an employer or government authority may, in appropriate circumstances, maintain different pay scales without necessarily violating Article 14.
4. Equal Designation Does Not Necessarily Mean Equal Pay
A recurring principle in Supreme Court jurisprudence is that designation alone is not determinative.
Two employees may carry the same or similar designation but still have differences in:
• duties;
• degree of responsibility;
• qualifications;
• experience;
• accountability;
• recruitment method;
• working conditions;
• sensitivity or confidentiality of functions; and
• volume or quality of work.
Therefore, a claim based solely on the fact that two employees have the same designation is generally insufficient.
The Court has previously stated that the claimant must establish substantive parity rather than relying merely on nomenclature. The established jurisprudence places the burden of demonstrating comparable duties and responsibilities substantially on the person seeking pay parity.
5. The Burden of Establishing Pay Parity
A person claiming equal pay cannot ordinarily succeed merely by stating that another employee receives a higher salary.
The claimant must demonstrate that the relevant posts are comparable in the legally significant sense.
The Supreme Court’s established principles include examination of:
A. Nature of Duties
The actual duties performed by the employees must be examined rather than merely comparing their job titles.
B. Responsibilities
Differences in responsibility can justify differences in remuneration.
C. Qualifications
Where one category requires different or higher qualifications, that factor can be relevant to determining pay parity.
D. Experience
Relevant prior experience may provide a legitimate basis for distinguishing between categories of employees.
E. Quality and Sensitivity of Work
The work must be comparable not merely in quantity but also in quality, sensitivity and responsibility.
F. Recruitment Method
The manner in which employees enter a service or cadre can also be relevant to determining whether two categories are legally comparable.
These principles are consistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier formulation that the claimant bears the burden of establishing that the work performed is of equal value to the reference post.
6. The Principle Is Not an Automatic Right to Identical Salary
The latest ruling should not be understood as eliminating the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Rather, it clarifies its legal application.
The principle continues to operate where employees are placed in different pay structures without a reasonable basis despite performing substantially comparable work.
However, the existence of some functional similarity does not automatically establish a constitutional violation.
The Court’s approach requires an examination of the complete service structure and relevant classification criteria before determining whether pay differentiation is lawful.
7. Equal Pay and Contractual or Outsourced Employees
The question becomes more complex where employees are engaged through contractors or outsourcing agencies.
The Supreme Court has also dealt with situations involving contractual workers and regular employees. In 2026, the Court reiterated that workers engaged through third-party contractors do not automatically acquire the same status and benefits as regular employees merely because they perform work at the same establishment.
The legal relationship between the worker, contractor and principal employer therefore becomes important.
Similarly, the Delhi High Court observed in 2026 that a pay-parity claim based on the State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh principle operates within an established employer-employee relationship; outsourced personnel cannot simply claim parity with regular staff without establishing the requisite direct employment relationship or challenging the outsourcing arrangement on appropriate grounds.
This demonstrates why employment status and the source of recruitment can be crucial in pay-parity litigation.
8. What the Latest Judgment Means for Employers
The judgment provides useful guidance for employers, particularly government departments and institutions operating structured pay scales.
Employers should ensure that differences in remuneration are supported by objective and legally defensible criteria.
A sound pay structure should, where relevant, take into account:
1. qualifications;
2. recruitment method;
3. prior experience;
4. nature of duties;
5. level of responsibility;
6. working conditions;
7. accountability; and
8. applicable service rules or regulations.
At the same time, employers should avoid arbitrary distinctions that cannot be supported by the actual requirements of the respective posts.
9. What Employees Should Consider Before Claiming Pay Parity
An employee considering a claim for equal pay should first examine the complete service conditions rather than relying solely on a comparison of salaries.
Relevant documents may include:
• appointment letters;
• recruitment rules;
• service regulations;
• job descriptions;
• pay-scale notifications;
• government orders;
• promotion or transfer rules;
• qualification requirements;
• records showing actual duties and responsibilities; and
• evidence regarding the experience and service conditions of the reference employees.
A proper legal claim should establish substantive equivalence, rather than simply asserting that the employees perform similar work.
10. Constitutional Balance: Equality and Reasonable Classification
Article 14 does not require every employee to receive identical treatment in every circumstance.
Indian constitutional law permits reasonable classification, provided the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia and has a rational connection with the objective sought to be achieved.
The latest Supreme Court decision applies this principle to pay structures by recognising that experience and the manner of recruitment can, in an appropriate case, provide a rational basis for different treatment.
Therefore, the constitutional question is not simply:
“Are these employees doing similar work?”
It is more accurately:
“Are the employees similarly situated in all legally relevant respects, and is the difference in remuneration supported by a rational and lawful basis?”
11. Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Latest Position
The recent decision in G.P. Sangeetha v. State of Kerala reinforces several important principles:
• Equal pay for equal work is not an automatic entitlement merely because duties appear similar.
• Job designation alone is insufficient to establish pay parity.
• Experience can be a legitimate basis for differentiation in pay.
• Recruitment through different channels may be relevant.
• Duties, responsibilities, qualifications and service conditions must be examined comprehensively.
• The claimant bears the burden of establishing the requisite parity.
• Reasonable classification under Article 14 can justify different pay structures.
• Contractual or outsourced employees cannot automatically claim the status and benefits of regular employees merely because they perform similar functions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s latest position does not dilute the constitutional principle of equality in employment. Instead, it emphasises that pay parity must be established through a careful comparison of the employees’ actual service conditions and legally relevant characteristics.
The decision in G.P. Sangeetha & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. makes it clear that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be invoked mechanically. Where differences in experience, recruitment method, responsibility or other relevant service characteristics provide a rational basis for classification, different pay scales may be legally sustainable.
For both employers and employees, the practical lesson is significant: pay parity disputes should be assessed on the substance of the employment relationship, the actual nature of work and the governing service framework—not merely on job titles or superficial similarity of duties.
This article is intended for general legal and informational purposes and should not be treated as legal advice. The application of the principle of equal pay depends on the facts, applicable service rules, employment relationship and judicial precedents relevant to each case.
Principal Case
G.P. Sangeetha & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2026 (SC) 948, Supreme Court of India.