Equal Pay for Equal Work Enforced: P&H High Court Grants Grade Pay Parity to Superintendents, Strikes Down ‘Premier Office’ Distinction
Case Name: Bhuvnesh Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 21.04.2026
Citation: CWP-14381-2020
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The High Court held that once employees form a homogeneous cadre with historical parity in pay and status, the State cannot create artificial sub-classification without rational basis, and denial of equal pay violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Summary: The petitioners, serving as Superintendents in various departments, challenged the denial of higher grade pay granted to their counterparts in select “premier offices” such as Haryana Civil Secretariat, HPSC, and Vidhan Sabha. They contended that all Superintendents had historically been treated as a single homogeneous cadre with identical pay scales and responsibilities.
The State defended the classification on the ground that Superintendents in premier offices performed more sensitive and policy-related functions requiring higher responsibility. It relied on recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Committee and past practice to justify the differential pay structure.
The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the service history and noted that since 1982, the classification of offices had been abolished and all Superintendents were consciously treated as one class of Group ‘B’ Gazetted officers with uniform pay scales. The differential grade pay introduced in 2009 created an intra-cadre disparity without any substantial or evidence-based distinction in duties.
The Court found that the State failed to provide cogent material demonstrating qualitative difference in responsibilities justifying higher pay for a select group. It held that vague assertions regarding confidentiality or policy work could not sustain a classification within the same cadre.
Relying on principles of “equal pay for equal work” and Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that once historical parity is established, any departure must be supported by clear and rational justification, failing which it is unconstitutional.
Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order denying parity. It directed the State to grant the petitioners grade pay of ₹4800 and ₹5400 at par with their counterparts in premier offices with effect from 02.07.2009 along with consequential benefits and arrears with interest.