New Delhi, September 22, 2026: The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not mean that employees performing identical or similar duties must invariably receive the same salary. The Court held that pay parity depends on a broader assessment of factors such as the source of recruitment, educational qualifications, experience, mode of appointment and the nature of responsibilities and accountability attached to the post.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, in its September 8, 2026 judgment in G.P. Sangeetha & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.,( Civil Appeal Nos. 7565–7567 of 2011; connected Civil Appeal No. 9060 of 2011) decided on 8.9.26, dismissed appeals filed by directly recruited Higher Secondary School Teachers (Junior) in government-aided schools in Kerala. The teachers had sought the same pay scale as colleagues appointed through transfer or promotion.
Same duties, different pay
The dispute arose within the same cadre of Higher Secondary School Teachers (Junior). The directly recruited teachers argued that they should receive the same pay as teachers appointed through promotion or transfer because the two groups had identical qualifications, duties and responsibilities.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the two groups could not be treated as completely equivalent because the promoted and transferred teachers brought with them prior teaching experience and service in the education department. The Court held that such prior experience constituted a valid basis for differentiating their pay.
The judgment records that the promoted teachers had previously served as full-time permanent high-school or lower-school teachers and had qualified for appointment to higher-secondary posts through promotion. The directly recruited teachers, in contrast, entered the cadre through direct recruitment.
‘Equal work’ means work of equal value
The Court reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is enforceable but cannot be applied mechanically merely by comparing the duties performed by two employees.
Referring to its earlier decisions, the Court said that a claim for pay parity requires consideration of a range of factors and, where relevant, “complete and wholesale” parity between the groups being compared. These factors can include the source of recruitment, educational qualifications, experience, the constitutional validity of the mode of appointment, and the responsibilities and accountability associated with the post.
The Court also relied upon earlier rulings holding that merit, experience and educational qualifications can constitute reasonable grounds for different pay scales, provided the classification has a rational connection with the objective sought to be achieved.
Constitutional basis
The principle of equal pay for equal work has its constitutional foundation in Article 14, which guarantees equality before law, read with Article 39(d), which directs the State to secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
The Supreme Court noted that its understanding of the doctrine has developed over time. While earlier decisions treated the principle as a broad protection against exploitation, subsequent judgments have placed greater emphasis on the service rules and the actual circumstances governing the employees being compared.
The Court referred, among other decisions, to State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, Government of West Bengal v. Tarun Kumar Roy and State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee. These authorities recognise that identical or similar work, by itself, does not necessarily establish entitlement to identical pay.
Experience can be a valid basis for pay differentiation
A significant aspect of the ruling is the Court’s treatment of experience as an intelligible basis for classification.
The Bench held that the greater prior teaching experience of teachers appointed through promotion or transfer provided a rational basis for their placement in a higher pay scale. In the Court’s view, the distinction was connected to the objective sought to be achieved and therefore did not violate the constitutional guarantee of equality.
The ruling does not abolish the principle of equal pay for equal work. Rather, it establishes that an employee seeking pay parity must demonstrate parity across the relevant employment conditions—not simply that the day-to-day duties appear similar.
Impact beyond the teachers’ dispute
The judgment is likely to be relevant to service-law disputes in which employees performing similar duties seek parity with another category of employees. The ruling indicates that courts may examine how employees entered service, their qualifications, prior experience and the responsibilities attached to their posts, rather than relying solely on the similarity of their present-day functions.
The Supreme Court accordingly upheld the Kerala High Court Division Bench’s decision and dismissed the appeals. It concluded that the difference in teaching experience between the two categories of teachers constituted a valid criterion for differentiation in pay scales.
The central takeaway from the judgment is that “equal work” is not synonymous with “same duties”. For a successful claim of equal pay, the employee must establish the requisite parity in the relevant service conditions and show that the work is of equal value.
