The Bombay High Court’s Circuit Bench at Kolhapur has delivered a significant ruling affirming the principle of equal pay for equal work for employees of government-aided hostels in Maharashtra. The judgment directs the State to implement minimum pay scales and other monetary benefits as per extant Government Resolutions, reinforcing constitutional guarantees of equality under Article 14.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The petitioners, employees of government-aided hostels in Maharashtra, approached the High Court seeking implementation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. Their claim was premised on the assertion that they perform duties identical to those of employees in government hostels but are denied equivalent pay scales and monetary benefits.
Key Facts
The petitioners are employees of private Government-aided hostels recognized and regulated by the State of Maharashtra.
The State has issued Government Resolutions (GRs) governing pay scales and monetary benefits for employees in government hostels, specifically:
GR dated 05.02.2000
GR dated 03.06.2008
The petitioners contend that their work is functionally equivalent to that of employees in government hostels but they are paid lower wages and denied other benefits.
The State’s position was that the petitioners are employees of private entities managing aided hostels and thus not entitled to the same pay scales as government employees.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition (ST) No.6173 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Hon’ble Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande.
The judgment was reserved and pronounced on 21.07.2026.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to the State of Maharashtra to:
Grant them wages at the minimum pay scale admissible to employees of government hostels.
Extend all monetary benefits, including dearness allowance and other pecuniary benefits, as per the GRs dated 05.02.2000 and 03.06.2008.
Compute and recalculate all admissible benefits within eight weeks and pay the same within four weeks thereafter.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether employees of private Government-aided hostels are entitled to the same pay scales and monetary benefits as employees of government hostels under the principle of equal pay for equal work guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. and Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer & Ors., which affirm the principle of equal pay for equal work. They argued that their work in government-aided hostels is functionally identical to that of employees in government hostels and thus they are entitled to equivalent pay scales and benefits. The petitioners also cited the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pawankumar Tamdu Patil & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, which supports their claim.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioners are employees of private entities managing aided hostels and thus not entitled to the same pay scales as government employees. The State argued that the GRs governing pay scales apply only to government employees and not to employees of private aided institutions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principle of equal pay for equal work as a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution. It noted that the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh & Ors. and Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer & Ors. has consistently held that employees performing similar duties must be paid equally, regardless of the nature of their employer, if the work and responsibilities are identical.
The Court observed that the petitioners perform duties in government-aided hostels that are functionally equivalent to those performed by employees in government hostels. The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Pawankumar Tamdu Patil & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, which held that employees of aided institutions are entitled to the same pay scales as government employees when performing similar duties.
The Court rejected the State’s contention that the petitioners are employees of private entities, noting that the aided hostels are under the regulatory and financial control of the State. The Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to the petitioners, and they are entitled to the minimum pay scales and monetary benefits as per the GRs dated 05.02.2000 and 03.06.2008.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the State of Maharashtra to:
Pay the petitioners wages at the minimum pay scale as admissible to employees of government hostels under the GRs dated 05.02.2000 and 03.06.2008.
Compute, recalculate, and decide all monetary benefits, including dearness allowance and other pecuniary benefits, within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
Pay all admissible benefits to the petitioners within four weeks thereafter.
The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Equal Pay for Equal Work Applies Beyond Government Employment
The judgment clarifies that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not limited to government employees. Employees of private institutions performing identical duties under government regulation and control are entitled to the same pay scales and benefits as their government counterparts.
Government Resolutions Govern Pay Scales in Aided Institutions
The Court’s direction to implement GRs dated 05.02.2000 and 03.06.2008 underscores that Government Resolutions setting pay scales apply to employees of aided institutions when performing government-regulated functions.
Practitioners should now argue that employees in aided institutions are entitled to pay scales and benefits as per GRs if their work is functionally equivalent to government employees.
Compliance Deadlines Are Mandatory
The Court imposed strict timelines for computation and payment of benefits. Practitioners should seek similar timelines in cases involving government pay scales to ensure timely compliance.
