Equal Pay for Equal Work: Can a Temporary Employee Claim It?

Yes, in principle, a temporary, daily-wage, contract or ad-hoc employee can claim equal pay for equal work, but the entitlement is to the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the same post, not the full salary of a regular employee. In 2016 the Supreme Court of India settled this for a large group of temporary staff, and the exact shape of that right is what most people get wrong.

The single biggest misunderstanding is that “equal pay for equal work” means you get the identical salary of a regular colleague. It does not. The table below is the honest picture.

The leading authority is State of Punjab and Ors v. Jagjit Singh and Ors, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 26 October 2016, by a bench of Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice S.A. Bobde. You can read the full judgment on Indian Kanoon: indiankanoon.org/doc/106416990.

The case brought together a large bunch of appeals from temporary, daily-wage and ad-hoc employees of the State of Punjab who were being paid far less than regular employees even though they did the same work. The Court had to decide whether “equal pay for equal work” applied to such temporary staff at all.

It held that it does. The Court affirmed the broader principle that equal pay for equal work is a right vested in every employee, whether engaged on a regular or a temporary basis. Then it gave the precise, limited relief.

Read those words carefully, because every limit in this article comes from them. The relief is the minimum of the pay-scale, at the lowest grade, and it is tied to employees holding the same post as regular staff. The Court also framed it as applying to “the present bunch of cases”, which is a reminder that a court decides on the facts before it. The principle is binding; your own entitlement still depends on your facts.

Before you assume the case covers you, work through these honestly.

1. Are you doing the same duties as a regular employee holding the same post? Similarity of work is the hinge. If a regular employee sits beside you doing the same job for more money, you are close to the situation the Court addressed. If your role is genuinely different, the comparison weakens.
2. Is there a sanctioned post and a regular pay-scale attached to it? The relief is the minimum of a specific regular pay-scale. There has to be such a scale for the post you fill.
3. Are you in public employment? Jagjit Singh concerned state employees. The principle of fair wages is broad, but the practical route in this article, using RTI to gather proof, works only where a public authority holds the records.

This is where readers are most often misled, so be clear-eyed.

• It does not make you permanent. Regularisation and equal pay are separate. Jagjit Singh is about wages for the work you do now, not about converting a temporary post into a permanent one.
• It does not give you full parity of salary and allowances. You get the minimum of the regular pay-scale, not increments built up over years, not seniority pay, and not every allowance a long-serving regular employee draws.
• It does not automatically hand you arrears for a fixed past period. The judgment does not lay down a general arrears rule you can rely on. Do not assume a specific number of years of back-pay. What you can recover depends on your own facts and the forum deciding your matter.
• It is not a self-executing order for you personally. The Court decided the cases in front of it. You still have to establish, on your facts, that you do the same work as a regular holder of the same post.

The honest summary: this case is a strong, binding statement of principle and a clear formula for relief, but it is not a blank cheque. Treat it as the standard you must prove you meet, not a right that switches on the moment you have a temporary label.

Here is where the RTI Act, 2005 is genuinely powerful. A pay-parity claim lives or dies on evidence that you do the same work as a regular employee holding the same post, and that a regular pay-scale attaches to that post. In public employment, all of that sits in official records you can ask for.

Through an RTI application to the public authority that employs you, you can seek:

• The sanctioned post details for the post you fill and for the regular post you are comparing yourself with.
• The pay-scale attached to that regular post, including its lowest grade or minimum.
• The duty chart or job description of the regular employees doing the same work.
• The office orders, engagement letters and circulars that created your post and set your wages.
• The staffing or establishment records showing how many regular and temporary staff hold the same post.

It is also worth knowing that the Code on Wages, 2019, one of the four labour codes that commenced on 21 November 2025, carries a provision against discrimination in wages between employees doing the same or similar work. That is the statutory echo of the principle, sitting alongside the case law. Check the current text of the Code for the exact wording that applies to your situation.

For the full step-by-step drafting method, see The RTI Playbook.

Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak works as an ad-hoc lecturer at a state-run college. A regular lecturer in the same department takes the same classes, sets the same papers and keeps the same hours, but earns far more. Dr. Pathak believes he is doing the same work for a fraction of the pay.

Instead of arguing from feeling, he builds a record. He files an RTI application with the college, a public authority, asking for four things: the sanctioned post and pay-scale of a regular lecturer in his department, the duty chart of regular lecturers, the office order under which his own ad-hoc post was created, and the minimum of the regular lecturer pay-scale.

When the replies arrive, he has, in writing, that a regular lecturer holds a sanctioned post on a defined pay-scale, and that the duties listed for that post match what he actually does. That is precisely the evidence Jagjit Singh turns on: same duties, same post, a regular scale with an identifiable minimum. He is not guaranteed to win, and he is not asking to be made permanent. He is asking, on solid documents, to be paid the minimum of the scale for the work he already does.

No. The Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh held that a temporary employee is entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale at its lowest grade for the same post. That is not the same as a regular employee's full salary, which includes increments, seniority and allowances built up over years of service.

No. Equal pay and regularisation are separate questions decided under different lines of law. Jagjit Singh is about the wages for the work you do, not about converting your temporary post into a permanent one. You can be entitled to fair wages without any right to be made permanent.

Not automatically. The judgment does not set a general rule guaranteeing a fixed period of back-pay. What you can recover depends on your own facts and the forum deciding your matter. Do not assume a specific number of years of arrears.

No. The RTI Act applies to public authorities, not private employers. If your employer is a government department, board, corporation or state-run institution, RTI is a strong tool to obtain post details, pay-scales and duty charts. For a private employer, you would use the labour and wage machinery instead.

Ask for the sanctioned post details and pay-scale of the regular post you compare with, the minimum of that scale, the duty chart or job description of regular employees doing the same work, and the office orders that created your post and fixed your wages. Those documents are the backbone of a pay-parity claim.

The principle it lays down is binding precedent. But the Court decided “the present bunch of cases” on their facts. Your own entitlement depends on proving that you do the same duties as a regular employee holding the same post, and that a regular pay-scale exists for it. The case is the standard you must show you meet.

This article explains the general legal position and the use of RTI to gather evidence. It is not legal advice and does not promise any outcome. For your own matter, rely on the official records and, where needed, professional guidance.

• Recovering unpaid minimum wages under the Code on Wages
• Retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Relations Code