Principle of Parity II / The Revival of Ray XI

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

45 Years of E.P. Royappa

Determination of Equation of Pay Scales: Government, Experts; Not Courts [SAIL, (2011) 11 SCC 122; S.C. Chandra, (2007) 8 SCC 27].

Determinative Factors in Equation of Posts: a) Prescribed Minimum Qualification; b) Nature and Duty [E.P. Royappa, (1974) 4 SCC 3]; c) Responsibility and Power; Salary [P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850].

“Article 14; Not Applicable. Burden of Claimant: Establishing Entitlement of Parity in Pay Scale [Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123]. Principle of Parity: Not Applicable.“

– Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi, Punjab State Electricity Board v. Thana Singh, [Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2019].

_____

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 observed, where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit, it is unequal according to political logic as well as constitutional law and would, therefore, be violative of Article 14. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 observed, Constitution does not envisage or permit unfairness or unreasonableness in State actions in any sphere of its activity. More recently, Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Sunil Krishna Khaitan (2023) 2 SCC 643 observed, mandate of Article 14 requires fairness in every action by State and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar, Prasad Pandurang Tapkir v. Assistant Director of Town Planning, Pune District, Pune, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9666 of 2023] decided on 13.07.2026.

Rudrajyoti Nath Ray's avatar
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.