Summary
The Court upheld pay parity for the vocational masters concerned with vocational lecturers. They had entered a unified cadre through a common process with qualifications treated as equivalent, continued to perform the same duties, and had historically received parity. Redesignation alone supplied no rational basis for lower pay. The adverse 2003 order also failed natural justice because affected employees had not been heard.
Issues
- Whether the State justified differential pay for the vocational masters and lecturers concerned.
- Whether the adverse pay order could be passed without hearing affected employees.
Held
- Qualification-based pay distinctions can be lawful, but these recruits entered through the same process with accepted equivalent qualifications and identical work. Redesignating some as lecturers without changing responsibilities did not justify the disputed difference. (¶ 15–18)
- Previously equal categories require cogent justification for different treatment where qualifications and job requirements remain the same. The State provided none sufficient to sustain the lower scale here. (¶ 17–19)
- The order reducing entitlement and requiring recovery imposed civil consequences without notice or hearing. That independent natural-justice defect also required its quashing. (¶ 19–22)
Result
State appeal dismissed without costs; High Court quashing of the 16 July 2003 order and grant of the notification benefits and lecturer pay scale to the affected vocational masters upheld.