The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that Haryana cannot pay contractual Legal Assistants lower wages than regular employees performing identical duties. The court held that employment status — contractual versus permanent — cannot justify wage discrimination when work performed is the same. The ruling invokes the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work, treating it as an enforceable right rather than a mere directive principle, and directs parity in remuneration for the affected Legal Assistants.

The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' originates in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment) and Article 39(d) under the Directive Principles of State Policy. For decades, courts treated Article 39(d) as non-justiciable. The Supreme Court changed this in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017), holding that equal pay for equal work is a constitutional right enforceable in courts, not merely a policy aspiration. The Punjab and Haryana HC's ruling applies this principle to contractual Legal Assistants in Haryana — reaffirming that the mode of appointment (contractual, ad hoc, daily wage) cannot justify differential pay when the nature, quantum, and quality of work are identical to that of regular employees.

The critical legal test: courts examine whether the duties, responsibilities, and work performed are substantively the same. If yes, the employment label — 'contractual' or 'regular' — cannot create a pay disparity. This distinction matters for CLAT PG because examiners often present a hypothetical where two employees do identical work but are paid differently due to their appointment mode, then ask which constitutional provision is violated or which precedent applies. The examiner tests whether the aspirant understands that Article 14 (not just Article 39(d)) is the operative right, and that Jagjit Singh settled the enforceability question.