Equal pay for equal work applied to Tribunal Members; quota-based pay discrimination was unjustified.

Parity in pay for Members of the Trade Tax Tribunal was examined on the basis of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that a different pay scale for members performing the same functions could be justified only by an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the job requirement. As no such justification was shown for distinguishing appointees from the advocates quota from those in the departmental quota, the petitioner was entitled to the same pay scale as other Members appointed from the departmental quota.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, appointed as a Member of the Trade Tax Tribunal from the advocates quota, was entitled to the same pay scale as Members appointed from the departmental quota.

Analysis: The dispute turned on parity in pay for members of the same cadre performing the same functions. The Court applied the principle of equal pay for equal work as a constitutional norm flowing from Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. It held that a differential pay scale could be sustained only if the State showed an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the job requirement. On the material before it, the Court found no such justification for treating members appointed from the advocates quota differently from those appointed from the departmental cadre, particularly when the initial scale attached to the post had already been revised for other members of the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the same pay scale as other Members of the Trade Tax Tribunal appointed from the departmental quota, and the rejection of his claim was unsustainable.

---