ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” or the broader constitutional guarantee of equality cannot be invoked without first establishing that the persons claiming parity are similarly placed in all material respects.
“Mere commonality of department, establishment or employer is not sufficient. The nature of work, degree of responsibility, working conditions and risks attached to the duties are relevant, and the ultimate consideration is whether the two classes of employees are similarly placed,” it added.
The respondents, employees of the Police Establishment of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province (police personnel assigned exclusively to internal roles or desk jobs), claimed entitlement to the Risk Allowance in the same manner as was being extended to the uniformed police officials. Their contention was that denial of the same benefit to them amounts to discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality. Upon refusal by the Department to grant the said allowance, the respondents agitated the matter before the Peshawar High Court (PHC) through a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, which was allowed.
The judgment, authored by Justice Aamir Farooq, a member of a two-judge bench, stated that the respondents have not been able to demonstrate that they perform duties of the same nature and in the same conditions as those uniformed police personnel for whom the allowance has been sanctioned. It noted that according to the record, the respondents are members of the ministerial establishment and are not performing active police duties. The classification; therefore, is not founded upon arbitrary or irrelevant consideration; it directly relates to the nature and hazards of the duties performed.
The FCC judgment observed that the PHC appears to have proceeded primarily on the fact that both categories of employees are serving with the police department. Such approach does not adequately address the material distinction in their relevant service functions. The relevant question was not whether the respondents belonged to the police department but was that whether they belonged to the class of employees for whom the allowance has been sanctioned.
The allowance of this nature is not by its very character and automatic incident of employment in a particular department. Whether the competent authority has sanctioned an allowance with reference to a particular nature of duties or occupational risks, the employee seeking its extension to him must establish that he or she falls within the prescribed class.
The judgment said that the High Court cannot enlarge the scope of such allowance merely on the basis of departmental affiliation, particularly where the classification has a rational connection with the performance for which the allowance was introduced.
It said that the courts may interfere where a classification is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or without rational basis; however, where the government has identified a distinction based upon the nature of duties and occupational risks, judicial interference is not warranted merely because another category of employee considers itself entitled to the same benefit.
The FCC maintained that the denial of the allowance to the respondents, under these circumstances, does not constitute hostile discrimination or offend constitutional guarantees of equality.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026