Equal pay for equal work requires true equivalence in duties, qualifications, and service conditions across the same authority.

Equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 16 applies only where employees are similarly situated under the same authority, and it does not extend to parity claimed between posts under different employers or authorities. Rule 2 of the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1966 was found inapplicable because the claimant was not shown to be drawing pay in a corresponding Punjab category before the revision, and the Chandigarh notification did not independently extend the Punjab scale to the post. The record also showed that the claimant remained in the Science Master cadre and failed to establish equivalence of duties, qualifications, or service conditions between the two posts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent, while working as Science Supervisor in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, was entitled to claim the pay scale sanctioned for District Science Supervisors in the State of Punjab on the principle of equal pay for equal work and on the basis of Rule 2 of the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1966.

Analysis: The principle of equal pay for equal work flows from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and can be invoked only where there is discrimination between similarly situated persons under the same authority. It does not apply to parity claimed between posts under different employers or different authorities functioning as State under Article 12. Rule 2 of the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1966 was inapplicable because the respondent was not shown to be drawing pay in a corresponding category of Punjab employees before the Punjab revision, and the Chandigarh notification did not independently extend the Punjab scale to the respondent's post. The record further showed that the respondent had been transferred to the post of Science Supervisor in his own pay scale, continued in the cadre of Science Master, and was later confirmed as Science Master. The respondent failed to establish that the two posts were equivalent in qualifications, duties, or service conditions.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the Punjab pay scale, and the claim based on equal pay for equal work failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Parity in pay under the doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be claimed between posts under different authorities unless the posts are shown to be truly equivalent in duties, qualifications, and service conditions, and the claimant establishes the factual basis for such equivalence.

---