(a) Sita Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 10 SCC 1 wherein it is held that distinction on the basis of educational or technical qualifications is valid.
(b) Harbans Lal & Ors Vs. State of HP (1989) 4 SCC 459 holding that discrimination complained must be within the same establishment owned by the same management. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different management.
(c) Mewa Ram Kanojia Vs. AIIMS (19890 2 SCC 235 wherein it has been held that even similar duties and functions are not sufficient to hold the claim for equal pay.
(d) Federation of All india Customs & Central Excise Stenographs Vs. UOI & Ors. (1988) 3 SCC
(e) SC Chandra Vs. State of Jharkhand 2007(10) Scale 209, stressing judicial restraint in interfering with executive decisions or functions has been emphasized.
(f) State of M.P. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635. This judgment holds that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Similarity in the designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of the quality in matter of pay scales. The Court has to consider factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need etc. Equality clause can be invoked only when there is wholesale identity between the holders of two posts.