Introduction:

In Gajanan Namdeo Oge & Ors. v. Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 9442 of 2019; 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 119], the Bombay High Court, through a Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe, delivered a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work.” The case involved 28 employees who were initially appointed by various Gram Panchayats and later absorbed into the Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation following its constitution in 2009. These employees, working in roles such as Safai Kamgars, clerks, and peons, approached the Court alleging discrimination in pay despite performing duties identical to those carried out by regular employees of the Corporation. While they continued to discharge the same functions as their counterparts, they were paid only minimum wages and were denied the benefits of regular pay scales, allowances, and other service advantages. The case thus raised an important constitutional question: whether the origin of appointment can justify disparity in wages when the nature of work performed is identical. The High Court was called upon to examine this issue in the light of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment.

Arguments of the Petitioners (Employees):

The petitioners, represented collectively, argued that their continued classification as employees entitled only to minimum wages, despite years of service within the Municipal Corporation, was arbitrary, unjust, and violative of their fundamental rights. They contended that upon the constitution of the Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation in 2009, they were absorbed into its administrative framework and had since been performing duties indistinguishable from those performed by regularly recruited employees. According to the petitioners, their work responsibilities included sanitation services, clerical tasks, and general administrative support, all of which were essential to the functioning of the Corporation and were identical in scope and nature to those assigned to regular staff. Despite this parity in duties, they were paid significantly lower wages and were denied benefits such as dearness allowance, increments, and other service-related entitlements. The petitioners argued that such disparity constituted clear discrimination and violated the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work,” which has been consistently upheld by constitutional courts as a facet of equality under Articles 14 and 16. They further submitted that the origin of their appointment in Gram Panchayats could not be used as a ground to deny them parity once they had been absorbed into the Municipal Corporation and had continued to serve for several years. The petitioners emphasized that their absorption was not temporary or ad hoc but formed part of the administrative restructuring that accompanied the creation of the Municipal Corporation. They also highlighted the financial and social hardships caused by their continued placement on minimum wages, arguing that such treatment was not only unjust but also undermined their dignity as workers. The petitioners thus sought directions from the Court to grant them pay parity with regular employees, along with arrears and consequential benefits.

Arguments of the Respondents (Municipal Corporation):

The Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation, in its defense, contended that the petitioners were not entitled to the same pay scales as regular employees due to the nature of their initial appointments. It was argued that the petitioners had been engaged by Gram Panchayats on a lump sum or daily wage basis, without undergoing the formal recruitment process prescribed for regular appointments in the Municipal Corporation. According to the Corporation, regular employees were appointed through a structured selection process that ensured merit, transparency, and compliance with statutory requirements, whereas the petitioners’ appointments lacked such procedural safeguards. The Corporation thus maintained that the difference in pay scales was justified on the basis of the distinct modes of recruitment and the absence of formal regularization. It was further argued that granting pay parity to the petitioners would create an anomalous situation, potentially undermining the established recruitment framework and opening the floodgates for similar claims from other categories of employees. The Corporation also contended that financial constraints and administrative considerations must be taken into account while determining pay structures, and that the Court should refrain from interfering with policy decisions relating to wages and service conditions. Additionally, the respondents argued that the petitioners had accepted their terms of employment at the time of absorption and had continued to work under those conditions without protest for several years, thereby acquiescing to the existing arrangement. On these grounds, the Corporation urged the Court to dismiss the writ petition and uphold the existing pay structure.

Judgment of the Court:

The Bombay High Court, after carefully examining the submissions of both parties and the material on record, allowed the writ petition and granted relief to the petitioners. The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe reaffirmed the constitutional doctrine of “equal pay for equal work,” holding that it is a well-established principle flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court observed that once the petitioners had been absorbed into the Municipal Corporation and had continued to perform duties identical to those of regular employees, there was no justification for treating them differently in matters of pay and service benefits. The Court categorically rejected the argument that the origin of appointment in Gram Panchayats could serve as a valid ground for denying pay parity. It held that such a distinction loses relevance once the employees are integrated into the same organizational structure and are discharging the same functions under similar conditions. The Court emphasized that equality in public employment is not merely a formal concept but must be reflected in substantive terms, including fair and equitable remuneration. It observed that paying lower wages to employees performing identical work amounts to discrimination and violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16. The Court also noted that it was not the case of the Corporation that the nature of duties performed by the petitioners was different from that of regular staff, thereby reinforcing the petitioners’ claim for parity. Addressing the issue of recruitment procedures, the Court held that while such considerations may be relevant at the stage of initial appointment, they cannot be used to perpetuate inequality once the employees are absorbed and continue to serve in the same capacity. The Court further observed that subjecting the petitioners to “abysmal wages” despite their long service and identical duties was unjust and contrary to the principles of fairness and equity. Accordingly, the Court directed the Municipal Corporation to grant the petitioners pay parity with regular employees and to extend all consequential benefits. It also directed the Corporation to calculate and pay arrears of salary along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum within four weeks. The judgment thus represents a strong reaffirmation of the principle that equal work must be compensated equally, and that administrative or historical distinctions cannot override constitutional guarantees of equality.