https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312051 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. en-us Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:09:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312051 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312051