WP/9319/2010 of K.SOUNDARARAJAN Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 21 September 2026

ORDER

Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and perused the records.

2. The petitioners by the present writ petition have assailed the action of the respondent in fixing the monthly scale of pay of the petitioners, who were working as Plot Watchers at Rs.2500-Rs.5000/- while regularising their services under G.O.(Status) No.95 (Environment and Forest FR-II) Department dated 07.08.2009 as being illegal and arbitrary and discriminatory compared to similarly placed Plot Watchers, who were granted time scale of pay of Rs.4800- 8200/- with effect from 07.08.2009.

3. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the respondents have regularised the services of the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.08.2008 in W.P.No.20683 of 2008 by issuing G.O.(Status).No.95 (Environment and Forest FR-II) Department, dated 07.08.2009, regularising the services of 3058 persons, who had completed 10 years of service in the new post of Gardner by placing them in the pay scale of Rs.2500-5000/- with a Grade Pay of Rs.500/-, the said fixation is much lower than the pay scale of the similarly placed Gardner/Plot watchers, who were placed in the pay scale of Rs.4800-8200/- from 07.08.2019. Since, the petitioners also discharge the same functions as the earlier employees who were drawing the higher pay scale, the petitioners are entitled for the same pay by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submits that but for the issuance of G.O.No.95, the petitioners would not be entitled for getting the services regularised and the Government, by adopting a humanitarian approach, by the said Government Order regularised the services of 3058 State Level Plot Watchers who were working on a daily wage basis, with effect from 07.08.2009 and granted them the benefit of pay scale of Rs.2500-5000/- with a Grade pay of Rs.500/-.

5. The learned Government Advocate further submits that since the petitioners were daily wage workers, they cannot claim parity with the Plot Watchers who were appointed through the regular mode of selection.

6. Contending as above, the learned Government Advocate submits that the present writ petition is without any merit.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

8. Though the petitioners seek for pay parity by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of G.P.Sangeetha and Ors Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.7565-7567 of 2011, dealt with the principle of equal pay for equal work and observed as under :- “ 8. In the last century, following the decision in Randhir

Singh v. Union of India13, this Court treated equal pay for equal work as an expansive anti-exploitation principle under Articles 14 and 39(d), where the mere sameness of designation – teacher with teacher, (1982) 1 SCC 618 accountant with accountant, clerk with clerk, driver with driver, etc. – was sufficient to claim parity. In this century, however, beginning with the decision in State Bank of India vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu14 and ending with State of Bihar vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee15, the doctrine has been recast as a strict test based on service rules. Decisions are legion that equal pay cannot be claimed by merely showing identical work; the claimant- employee must establish complete parity in the source of recruitment, educational qualifications and experience, mode of appointment through a constitutional process, and nature of responsibilities and accountability. Mere functional similarity of work has been held to be no longer enough.

9. In M.R. Ganesh Babu (supra), this Court observed as under: “16. The principle of equal pay for equal work has been considered and applied in many reported decisions of this Court. The principle has been adequately explained and crystallised and sufficiently reiterated in a catena of decisions of this Court. It is well settled that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The principle is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. Differentiation in pay scales of persons holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. The judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the court.”

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court by holding as above laid down the test for considering as to whether an employee can seek for applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, held as under: “13. It is, therefore, clear on reading the relevant precedents that a mechanical application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work has to be eschewed. It is not the law that the doctrine can never be enforced; but, for such enforcement, a host of factors need consideration. If there is complete parity qua all such factors and should equal pay be claimed for equal work of equal value, the writ court can intervene and grant appropriate relief; otherwise not.”

10. Applying the aforesaid test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts of the present case, since the petitioners, but for the issuance of the Government Order vide G.O.No.95 by the respondent/Government could not and cannot claim as being entitled for regularisation of their services, much less seek pay parity with that of Plot Watchers who were recruited through regular selection process. Since, it is only by way of concession that the petitioners' services were regularised by Respondent/State under G.O.(Status).No.95 (Environment and Forest V-2) Department, this Court is of the view that the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned decision would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and as the petitioners are not placed similarly to the Plot Watchers who were appointed through the regular mode, the petitioners are not entitled for being granted pay parity with the pay scale applicable to the Plot Watchers who were appointed through the regular mode.

11. In view of the above, the present writ petition as filed is devoid of merits.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dh To The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Secretary, Environment And Forests (FR2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

T.VINOD KUMAR, J. dh WP No. 9319 of 2010 21.09.2026