Court Rules Higher Qualifications Don’t Guarantee Higher Pay

On November 11, 2025, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court issued a ruling clarifying that possessing higher qualifications does not entitle an employee to a higher salary unless they hold a corresponding position. This decision arose from a case involving Mr. Mir, who contested his classification as an unskilled worker despite his claims of performing the duties of a skilled Computer Operator.

Mr. Mir began his tenure with the Jammu and Kashmir State CAMPA (Forest Department) when he was appointed as an Orderly on July 12, 2013. Following his initial role, he was assigned to work as a Computer Operator but maintained his classification as an unskilled worker. He argued that according to S.O. 513 of 2022, skilled workers should receive a minimum daily wage of Rs 483. Consequently, he sought to have his wages adjusted to reflect this classification.

In court, Mr. Mir contended that he had been unjustly categorized as unskilled and that his responsibilities warranted a higher wage. He emphasized that he had been functioning as a Computer Operator for nearly a decade, which should qualify him for wages aligned with skilled workers under the SRO 335 of 1991. Mr. Mir argued that other employees in similar roles received recognition as skilled workers, while he felt discriminated against due to arbitrary classification.

The department countered Mr. Mir’s claims, stating that engagement classification for need-based workers is determined by their educational qualifications and the specific position they applied for. They noted that Mr. Mir had applied for the Orderly position and was appointed accordingly. The department argued that his ongoing compensation of Rs 9,330 per month reflected the minimum wages set for unskilled workers.

The court examined the engagement order and determined that Mr. Mir’s role was indeed as an Orderly, despite his computer skills. The ruling reinforced the idea that wages are intrinsically tied to the position held, rather than the qualifications possessed. The judges maintained that simply being knowledgeable in computer operations does not automatically qualify an employee for the corresponding skilled wage without a formal appointment or promotion.

In detail, the High Court stated, “An employee or a worker is entitled to wages attached to a post/position. He cannot claim wages attached to a higher post/position merely because he is qualified to hold such post/position.” This ruling dismissed Mr. Mir’s petition, emphasizing that his voluntary acceptance of the Orderly position precluded him from claiming higher wages associated with the Computer Operator role.

Legal expert Anshul Prakash from Khaitan & Co commented on the case, noting that the judgment underscored the importance of position over qualification in salary determination. While the ruling is significant, it leaves open questions regarding how responsibilities and duties should influence wage determinations, as outlined by the Supreme Court.

The implications of this judgment may affect other workers who perform duties beyond their designated roles without formal recognition or promotion. Although the ruling is binding for jurisdictional authorities, it may serve as a reference point in similar cases, albeit without the weight of Supreme Court rulings.

As labor laws continue to evolve, this case highlights the ongoing dialogue about fair wage practices and the balance between job classification and employee qualifications. The decision serves as a reminder that, in the eyes of the law, formal titles and roles remain paramount in determining salary scales.