Supreme Court: equal pay for equal work cannot be applied mechanically, experience is a valid basis for pay differentiation

What is preserved

The source documents returned at the capture time have been retained privately (HTML, readable text or PDF). This is a webpage capture, not a complete copy of the publisher’s media or a platform export.

Equal pay for equal work cannot be applied mechanically; experience must be considered: Supreme Court

Bar & Bench · Original source ↗

Captured 17/9/2026, 7:07:28 pm · text/html; charset=utf-8

SHA-256: 36bec56ee6a62ea87e92785eade1d7b4f843b53ea0812a1eccd56f18497c417c

5215_2023_9_1501_70816_Judgement_07-May-2026.pdf

api.sci.gov.in · Original source ↗

Captured 17/9/2026, 7:07:36 pm · application/pdf

SHA-256: acac62c351f6f2fe6668fcdf5547906790a8929cf4b2b002fb3a548d867f26eb

75020032026CW11442026_122514.pdf

delhihighcourt.nic.in · Original source ↗

Captured 17/9/2026, 7:07:39 pm · application/pdf

SHA-256: 2d57708b1d26a47546b29dc65a2a0929780a1c522f69d23a223045f9cdead650

39112_2010_5_1501_42139_Judgement_22-Feb-2023.pdf

api.sci.gov.in · Original source ↗

Captured 17/9/2026, 7:07:44 pm · application/pdf

SHA-256: d967405e79ee443787b8076e6d13ccb3242fd0c54aefde32cd2ccf1641ae74a3

Capture integrity

SHA-256: 36bec56ee6a62ea87e92785eade1d7b4f843b53ea0812a1eccd56f18497c417c

A matching hash confirms that captured bytes have not changed. It does not establish that the publisher’s claims are true or that the page had this content before the capture date.

Limits of this record

The discovery title concerns a Supreme Court pay-parity order on mechanically applying equal pay. The only captured item directly addressing that topic is one Bar & Bench report. All factual claims in the draft derive from that single report's account of the ruling, so the story is attributed rather than corroborated.

Two other captured primary sources were reviewed and are mismatched: a Supreme Court judgment (Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand) on regularisation of SSA para-teachers, and a Supreme Court judgment (Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association) on design-officer pay scales. Neither is the GP Sangeetha ruling, so neither corroborates the reported holding. A Delhi High Court judgment (ITGOA v. Union of India) was also reviewed; it addresses a different pay-parity dispute involving private secretaries in the Income Tax Department.

No text of the GP Sangeetha judgment itself was captured. Specific propositions of law and quoted phrases in the report are attributed to the report, not independently verified against the order. The 'per incuriam' declaration and the identity of counsel are also unverified.

The Kerala High Court's 2011 Division Bench judgment and its reasoning were not captured; the procedural history is recounted from the report.

The two primary judgments were reported on the sites of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, but this does not entail that they independently corroborate the report. They concern different disputes and different benches.

The report gives the ruling date as recently published, dated 17 September 2026. Recency of publication does not establish the date of the underlying decision and does not prove its legal effect.

Media coverage does not prove consensus that the doctrine has been recast, and we do not claim the Court abandoned the principle of equal pay. Available coverage is limited to one secondary source and indirectly relevant primary judgments.

Some candidate sources were inaccessible or outside the supported research domains; consult the capture log.

The original file is retained for editorial reference. Reproduction rights have not been established, so the raw capture is not publicly redistributed.