Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
MEWA RAM KANOJIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/03/1989
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
CITATION:
1989 AIR 1256 1989 SCR (1) 957
1989 SCC (2) 235 JT 1989 (1) 512
1989 SCALE (1)280
CITATOR INFO :
F 1989 SC1308 (12)
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16 and
39(d)--’Equal pay for equal work’--Principle of--Cannot be
invoked invariably in every kind of service--Particularly in
area of professional services-Open to State to classify
employees on basis of qualifications, duties and responsi-
bilities of posts.
’Hearing Therapist’--’Senior Speech
pathologist’--’Senior physiotherapist’--’Senior Occupation-
al Therapist’--’Audiologist’-’Speech pathologist’--Differ-
ent scales of pay for the posts--Permissibility of.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1967
to the post of ’Teacher Co-ordinator’ in the pay scale of
Rs.210-425 in a Research Project funded by the Indian Coun-
cil of Medical Research. As the unit where the petitioner
was employed was taken over by the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences on 1.7.1970 his services stood transferred
to the said Institute and he continued to hold the post of
Teacher Coordinator in the Institute. Though the post was
redesignated as ’Hearing Therapist’ with effect from 3.8.72,
the same scale of pay, viz Rs.210-425 continued.
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commis-
sion the pay scale of ’Hearing Therapist was revised to
Rs.425-700 with effect from 1.1.1973, and since then the
petitioner continued to draw salary in the said scale.
The petitioner made several representations to the
respondentauthorities to revise his pay scale and to place
him in the pay scale prescribed for ’Speech Pathologist’ and
’Audiologist’ viz. Rs.650-1200. Since no relief was granted
the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by
means of a writ petition under Article 32.
The petitioner contended in his writ petition, that as
’Hearing Therapist’ he performs the same duties and func-
tions as ’Senior Speech Pathologist’, ’Senior Physio Thera-
pist’, ’Senior Audiologist’ and
958
’Speech Pathologist’ that the qualifications prescribed for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
the aforesaid posts are almost similar and they are working
in the same institution under the same employer, yet the
respondent-authorities practised discrimination in refusing
to accept his claim for equal pay. It was further contended
that the Third Pay Commission ignored the claim of ’Hearing
Therapist’ although it had granted higher scale of pay for
similar posts of ’Speech Therapist’, ’Senior Speech Patholo-
gist’, and ’Audiologist’, and that ’Speech Therapists’
performing similar types of duty as are performed by the
petitioner had been granted higher pay scale in other organ-
isations like Safdarjung Hospital, PGI Chandigarh, and
Medical College, Rohtak. The respondents having thus failed
to implement the Directive Principle of ’Equal pay for equal
work’ as contained in Art. 39(d) of the Constitution in
violation of Arts. 14 and 16, the petitioner claimed relief
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the re-
spondents for fixing his pay in the scale of Rs.410-950 with
effect from 1.1.1970, and thereafter in the scale of
Rs.650-1200 with effect from 1.1.1973.
The respondents contested the writ petition by asserting
that the petitioner cannot compare himself with ’Senior
Speech Therapist’. ’Senior Physio Therapist’, ’Senior Occu-
pational Therapist’, ’Audiologist’ or ’Senior Therapist’ as
qualifications, duties and functions of these posts are
altogether different and distinct from those prescribed for
’Hearing Therapist’, that there is no equality between the
petitioner and the persons holding the aforesaid posts, that
the Institute had created different posts with different pay
scales having regard to the qualifications, duties, and
responsibilities of the posts. The petitioner’s plea of
discrimination was emphatically denied.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court,
HELD: The principle of ’Equal pay for equal work’ cannot
be invoked invariably in every kind of service, particular-
ly, in the area of professional services. [967H]
Dr. C. Girijambal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,
[1981] 2 SCR 782 relied on.
In the instant case, even assuming that the petitioner
performs similar duties and functions as those performed by
an ’Audiologist’, it is not sufficient to uphold his claim
for equal pay. In judging the equality of work for the
purposes of equal pay, regard must be had not only to the
duties and functions but also to the educational qualifica-
tions,
959
qualitative difference and the measures of responsibility
prescribed for the respective posts. Even if the duties and
functions are of similar nature but if the educational
qualifications prescribed for the two posts are different
and there is difference in measure of responsibilities, the
principle of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’ would not apply.
[964H; 965A-B]
State of Mysore v. Narasing Rao, [1968] 1 SCR 407; Union
of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli, [1973] 3 SCC 592; Jammu &
Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khose & Ors., [1974] 1 SCC 19; Ganga
Ram v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 481; Mohammad Shujat Ali
JUDGMENT:
of All India Customs & Central Excise Stenographers (Recog-
nised) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 91 and
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sh. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., [1989] 1
SCC 121 referred to.
Merely because Speech Therapists performing similar
duties and functions in other institutions are paid higher
pay scale is no good ground to accept the petitioner’s claim
for equal pay. In the absence of any material placed before
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
the Court it is not possible to record findings that the
petitioner is denied equality before the law. Moreover, if
the employer is not the same the principle of ’Equal pay for
equal work’ would not be applicable. [969E-F]
The doctrine of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’ is not an
abstract one, it is open to the State to prescribe different
scales of pay for different posts having regard to educa-
tional qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the
post. The principle of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’ is ap-
plicable when employees holding the same rank perform simi-
lar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibili-
ties are treated differently. The application of the doc-
trine would arise where employees are equal in every respect
but they are denied equality in matters relating to the
scale of pay. The principle of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’
has been enforced by this Court. [962D-F]
Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 1 SCC
618; Direndra Chemoli & Anr. v. State of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC
637; V.J. Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985]
(Supp.) SCC 7; P. Savita v. Union of India & Ors., [1985]
(Supp.) SCR 101; Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, [1987] 4
SCC 634 and Jai Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
[1988] 3 SCC 354, referred to.
960
While considering the question of application of princi-
ple of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’ it has to be borne in mind
that it is open to the State to classify employees on the
basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the
posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus
with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the
administration, the State would be justified in prescribing
different pay scale but if the classification does not stand
the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is
rounded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be viola-
tive of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must
be among the equals, unequals cannot claim equality. [962G-
H; 963A-B]
&
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4611 of
1983.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Gobinda Mukhoty and K.N. Rai for the Petitioner.
A. Mariarputham for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SINGH, J. By means of this petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution the petitioner has raised a grievance that
the Respondent-Authorities have practised discrimination in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in
refusing to pay him salary in the scale of pay prescribed
for similarly placed employees. He has invoked the doctrine
of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" as enshrined under Article
39(d) of the Constitution.
In order to appreciate petitioner’s grievance it is
necessary to refer to relevant facts giving rise to this
petition. The petitioner was initially appointed in 1967 to
the post of Teacher Co-ordinator in the pay scale of Rs.2
10-425 in the Research Project "Rehabilitation Unit in
Audiology and Speech Pathology" a project funded by the
Indian Council of Medical Research under PL-480 research
scheme with the special assistance of the Social Rehabilita-
tion Services (formerly Vocational Rehabilitation Adminis-
tration). The aforesaid unit was taken over by the All India
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
Institute of Medical Sciences on 1.7. 1970 alongwith the
staff attached to the said unit. The petitioner’s services
stood transferred to the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) and the
petitioner continued to hold the post of Teacher Coordinator
in the Institute. On the recommendation
961
of the Head of the Department of Rehabilitation Unit the
petitioner’s post was redesignated as ’Hearing Therapist’
with effect from 3.8. 1972 but he continued to draw the
salary in the same scale of pay of Rs.210425. In pursuance
to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission as adopt-
ed by the Institute the pay scale of Hearing Therapist was
revised to Rs.425-700 with effect from 1.1.1973. Since then
the petitioner has continued to draw salary in the pay scale
of Rs.425-700. The petitioner made several representations
to the respondentauthorities to revise his pay scale and to
place him in the pay scale prescribed for the "Speech Pa-
thologist" and "Audiologist" in the pay scale of Rs.650-
1200. Since no relief was granted to him he invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court by means of this petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petitioner’s main grievance is that ’Hearing Thera-
pist’ perform the same duties and functions as ’Senior
Speech Pathologist’, ’Senior Physiotherapist’, ’Senior
Occupational Therapist’, ’Audiologist’, and ’Speech Patholo-
gist’, yet the respondents have practised discrimination in
paying salary to the petitioner in a lower scale of pay. The
petitioner has asserted that the qualification prescribed
for the aforesaid posts are almost similar and they are
working in the same institution under the same employer but
the respondent-authorities have practised discrimination in
refusing to accept the petitioner’s claim for equal pay. The
petitioner has further raised a grievance that the Third Pay
Commission ignored the claim of ’Hearing Therapist’ although
it has granted higher scale of pay for similar posts of
’Speech Therapist’, ’Senior Speech Pathologist’ and ’Audiol-
ogist’. He has asserted that Speech Therapists performing
similar kind of duties as performed by the petitioner have
been granted higher pay scale in other organisations like
Safdarjang Hospital, P.G.I. Chandigarh, Medical College
Rohtak and Ali Yaver Jung National Institute for the Hearing
Handicapped, Hyderabad. The petitioner contends that the
respondents have failed to implement the Directive Princi-
ples of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’ as contained in Article
39(d) of the Constitution in violation of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution. He has claimed relief for the issuance
of writ of mandamus directing the respondents which include
All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Union of India
for fixing the petitioner’s pay in the scale of Rs.400-950
with effect from 1.1.1970 and thereafter in the scale of
Rs.650-1200 with effect from 1.1.1973. In defence the re-
spondents assert that the petitioner cannot compare himself
with Senior Speech Therapist, Senior Physiotherapist, Senior
Occupational Therapist, Audiologist or Speech Therapist as
qualifications, duties and functions of those posts
962
are altogether different and distinct from those prescribed
for Hearing Therapist. There is no equality between the
petitioner and persons holding the aforesaid posts. The
Institute has created different posts with different pay
scales having regard to the qualifications, duties, func-
tions and responsibilities of the posts. The petitioner is
not entitled to equate himself with the incumbents holding
the posts of Senior Speech Therapist, Senior Physiothera-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
pist, Senior Occupational Therapist, Audiologist and Speech
Therapist. The petitioner’s plea of discrimination is em-
phatically denied.
The doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is not ex-
pressly declared a fundamental fight under the Constitution.
But Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Con-
stitution declares the constitutional goal enjoining the
State not to deny any person equality before law in matters
relating to employment including the scales of pay. Article
39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
enjoins the State that where all things are equal and person
holding indentical posts, performing indentical and similar
duties under the same employer should not be treated differ-
ently in the matter of their pay. The doctrine of ’Equal Pay
for Equal Work’ is not abstract one, it is open to the State
to prescribe different scales of pay for different posts
having regard to educational qualifications, duties and
responsibilities of the post. The principle .of ’Equal Pay
for Equal Work’ is applicable when employees holding the
same rank perform similar functions and discharge similar
duties and responsibilities are treated differently. The
application of doctrine would arise where employees are
equal in every respect but they are denied equality in
matters relating to the scale of pay. The principle of
"Equal Pay for Equal Work" has been enforced by this Court
in Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 1 SCC 618;
Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State ofU. P., [1986] 1 SCC 637;
V.J. Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,[1985] (Supp.)
SCC 7; P. Savita v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] (Supp.)
SCR 101; Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, [1987] 4 SCC 634
and Jai Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC
354. In all these cases this Court granted relief on the
application of the doctrine of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’.
While considering the question of application of prin-
ciple of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’ it has to be borne in
mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on
the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of
the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable
nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency
in the administration, the State would be justified in
prescribing
963
different pay scale but if the classification does not stand
the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is
rounded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be viola-
tive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality
must be among the equals, Unequals cannot claim equality.
In the writ petition, the petitioner claimed parity with
the pay scale prescribed for Senior’ Speech Therapist,
Senior physiotherapist, Senior Occupational Therapist,
Audiologist and Speech Pathologist but during the course of
hearing Sri Gobind Mukhoty, learned counsel for the peti-
tioner confined the petitioner’s case for parity with ’Aud-
iologist’ only. He urged that the educational qualifica-
tions, duties and functions of ’Hearing Therapist’ and
’Audiologist’ are similar, if not the same, and there is no
reasonable justification for prescribing lower pay scale of
pay to Hearing Therapist. A Hearing Therapist is required to
treat the deaf and other patients suffering from hearing
defects. His function is to help in rehabilitation of those
whose hearing capacity is impaired. The Hearing Therapist’s
main function is to train the patient to facilitate maximum
expressive and receptive communication skill. An ’Audiolo-
gist’ pertains to the science of hearing. His work is de-
signed to coordinate the separate professional skills which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
contribute to study, treatment and rehabilitation of persons
with impaired hearing. A person holding the post of Audiolo-
gist is a specialist in the non-medical evaluation, habili-
tation and rehabilitation of those who suffer from language
and speech disorders. Generally, Hearing Therapist and
Audiologist both perform duties and functions is helping
rehabilitation of patients suffering from hearing disorders,
their duties and functions appear to be similar, but the
petitioner has not placed material before the Court to
demonstrate that the duties and functions performed by
Hearing Therapist is same or similar as that performed by an
Audiologist. The petitioner has placed reliance on a certif-
icate issued by the Head of Department of Otorhinolaryngolgy
which enumerates duties, functions which the petitioner has
been performing while working as Hearing Therapist. Accord-
ing to this certificate the petitioner has been carrying out
the following functions:
"1. Diagnosis of the impairment of hearing cases.
(Detailed diagnosis).
2. Audiological evaluation i.e. heating aid evaluation,
hearing and prescription and autitory training.
964
3. Parent counselling and guidance.
4. Referring to different experts for their opinion such
as Physiotherapist, Occupational Therapist, Clinical Psy-
chologist, Ear Mould Technician, Paediatrician, Paediatric
Neurologist and Opthalmologist, Audiometry Technical and to
ENT Specialist.
5. Speech and language therapy.
6. Integration of hearing handicapped with normal persons.
7. Integration of hearing loss children with normal
hearing children.
8. Guidance to the teachers of normal schools where there
is any hard of heating case is studying.
9. Writing of papers and books on the basis of personal
experience and research.
10. Speech therapy to normal hearing persons as and when
referred to them.
11. Referring the hearing handicapped children to special
schools for the deaf and when a child is unable to study in
a normal school.
12. Educational rehabilitation of any age group of hear-
ing loss cases. ’’
The petitioner has, however, failed to place material before
the Court showing the corresponding duties and functions of
an Audiologist in the Institute. In the absence of duties
and functions of an Audiologist it is not possible for the
Court to record findings that the duties and functions
performed by Hearing Therapist is similar to those performed
by an Audiologist more so when the respondents have denied
the petitioner’s claim in the counter-affidavit. The peti-
tioner’s claim that he performs the same duties and func-
tions as those performed by an Audiologist under the same
employer cannot therefore be accepted.
Even assuming that the petitioner performs similar
duties and functions as those performed by an Audiologist,
it is not sufficient to
965
uphold his claim for equal pay. As already observed, in
judging the equality of work for the purposes of equal pay,
regard must be had not only to the duties and functions but
also to the educational qualifications, qualitative differ-
ence and the measures of responsibility prescribed for the
respective posts. Even if the duties and functions are of
similar nature but if the educational qualifications pre-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
scribed for the two posts are different and there is differ-
ence in measure of responsibilities, the principle of ’Equal
Pay for Equal Work’ would not apply. Under the relevant
Rules framed by the Institute qualifications for the two
class of posts, namely, Audiologist and Hearing Therapist’
are as under:
Audiologist Qualifications Hearing Therapist Qualifications
Essential Essential
1. A graduate in Science/ 1. A graduate in Science or
Arts or Medicines, from Arts of a recognised Univer-
a recognised University. sity in India or abroad.
2. Master’s degree in Audiology 2. Trained teacher for the
or Otolaryngology from a deaf, such as Certified
recognised Institution/ Teacher for Deaf
University (C.T.D .... Dip.)
3. Three years teaching/ 3. Teaching experience at a
research experience in recognised school for the deaf
the field of Audiology. in India for not less than
three years.
Desirable
1. Ph.D. in Audiology from a
recognised University.
2. Practical experience of
working in a speech and
Hearing Rehabilitation
Centre.
3. Journalistic or literary
activity in relation to
Audiology.
966
A perusal of the above chart would show that different
educational qualifications are prescribed for the two posts.
For an Audiologist a Master’s Degree in Otolaryngology or
Audiology is an essential qualification but no such Master’s
Degree is prescribed for Hearing Therapist instead a diploma
as Certified Teacher for Deaf is the essential qualification
for the said post. A comparison of the qualifications pre-
scribed for the two posts clearly indicates that higher
qualification is prescribed for the post of Audiologist.
There appears to be qualitative difference in the responsi-
bilities of the two posts as an Audiologist possesses higher
qualification. It is therefore manifest that on the basis of
educational qualifications two posts cannot be equated. Even
if the functions and duties of two posts are similar it is
open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay on
the basis of difference in educational qualifications.
Different treatment to persons belonging to the same class
is a permissible classification on the basis of educational
qualifications.
There are several decisions of this Court where educa-
tional qualifications have been recognised as a valid basis
for classification. In State of Mysore v. Narasingh Rao,
[1968] 1 SCR 407 this Court held that higher educational
qualifications such as success in S.S.L.C. examination are
relevant considerations for fixation of higher pay scale for
tracers who had passed the S.S.L.C. examination and the
classification of two grades of tracers in Mysore State, one
for matriculate tracers with higher pay scale and the other
for non-matriculate tracers with lower pay scale, was held
valid. It is pertinent to note that matriculate and non-
matriculate tracers both constituted the same service per-
forming the same duties and functions, yet the Court held
that higher pay scale prescribed for the matriculate tracers
on the basis of higher educational qualification was not
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli, [1973] 3 SCC 592
classification made on the basis of educational qualifica-
tion for purposes of promotion was upheld by this Court on
the ground that the classification made on the basis of such
a requirement was not without reference to the objectives
sought to be achieved and there could be no question of
discrimination. In State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath
Khose & Ors., [1974] 1 SCC 19 cadre of Assistant Engineers
included of Degree holders and Diploma-holders, they consti-
tuted one class of service but for promotion to the post of
Executive Engineers only those Assistant Engineers were
eligible for promotion who possessed Bachelor’s Degree in
Engineering and the Diploma-holders were eligible only if
they had put in 7 years minimum service no such restriction
was prescribed for Degree-holders. The
967
Diploma-holder Assistant Engineers challenged the validity
of the rule on the ground that it denied them equal opportu-
nity of promotion, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. On a detailed consideration a Constitution
Bench of this Court upheld the classification on the ground
of difference in educational qualification. The Court held
that classification rounded on the basis of educational
qualification had a reasonable nexus to achieve administra-
tive efficiency in Engineering Services. The Court approv-
ingly referred to the decisions of the Court in State of
Mysore v. Narasing Rao, [1968] 1 SCR 407; Ganga Ram v. Union
of India, [1970] 3 SCR 481 and Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.)
S.B. Kohli, [1973] 3 SCC 592. The Court upheld the classifi-
cation and refused to grant any relief to Diploma-holder
Engineers. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. etc., [1975] 1 SCR 449 another Constitution Bench of
this Court upheld the classification of Supervisors into two
classes, graduates and non-graduates for the purpose of
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers on the ground
of educational qualification although both the class of
supervisors constituted the same service. In Federation of
All India Customs & Central Excise Stenographers (Recog-
nised) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 91
claim of Personal Assistants and Stenographers attached to
the Head of Departments in the Customs and Central Excise
Department of the Ministry of Finance for equal pay in
parity with the Personal Assistants and Stenographers at-
tached to the Joint Secretaries and Officers above them in
the Ministry of Finance was rejected by this Court on the
ground of the functional requirement of the work done,
training, and responsibility prescribed for the two posts.
In State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sh. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., [1989]
1 SCC 121 the question arose whether it was permissible to
have two different pay scales in the cadre of Bench Secre-
taries, for persons performing the same duties and having
the same responsibilities. In the light of the various
decisions of this Court it was held that the principle of
"equal pay for equal work", has no mechanical application in
every case of similar work. Articles 14 and 16 permit rea-
sonable classification rounded on rational basis, it is,
therefore, permissible to provide two different pay scales
in the same cadre on the basis of selection based on merit
with due regard to experience and seniority. The Court held
that in such a situation the principle of equal pay for
equal work did not apply.
We would like to emphasise that the principle of equal
pay for equal work cannot be invoked invariably in every
kind of service, particularly, in the area of professional
services. In Dr. C. Girijambal v. Government of Andhra
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
Pradesh, [1981] 2 SCR 782 it was contended
968
before the Court that medical officers holding the degree of
Graduate from the College of Integrated Medicine (GCIM) and
holders of Licentiate in Indigenous Medicine (LIM) performed
the same functions and discharged the same duties in dispen-
saries and therefore on the principle of "equal pay for
equal work" both class of persons were entitled to the same
scale of pay. Medical officers holding the qualifications of
GCIM or the qualification of LIM or the qualification of
Diploma in Ayurvedic Midicine (DAMO), being in charge of
dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads were not treated alike
as the State Government had prescribed different scales of
pay for. medical officers. On behalf of the aggrieved Doc-
tors it was contended that the functions and duties dis-
charged by the three class of doctors in the dispensaries
run by Zilla Parishads were the same and their qualifica-
tions were also similar and yet the State Government prac-
tised discrimination in prescribing different scale of pay
for them. This Court held that the principle of equal pay
for equal work could not be invoked or applied in the area
of professional services like medical practioners. The Court
observed as under:
"Dealing with the first contention we would
like to observe at the outset that the princi-
ple of equal work cannot be invoked or applied
invariably in every kind of service and cer-
tainly it cannot be invoked in the area of
professional service when these are to be
compensated. Dressing of any injury or wound
is done both by a doctor as well as a com-
pounder, but surely it cannot be suggested
that for doing this job a doctor cannot be
compensated more than the compounder. Similar-
ly, a case in Court of law is argued both by a
senior and a junior lawyer, but it is diffi-
cult to accept that in matter of remuneration
both should be treated equally. It is thus
clear that in the field of rendering profes-
sional services at any rate the principle of
equal pay for equal work would be inapplica-
ble. In the instant case Medical officers
holding the qualification of GCIM, or
the qualification of LIM or the qualification
of DAM, though in charge of dispensaries run
by Zilla Parishads cannot therefore, be treat-
ed on par with each other and if the State
Government or the Zilla Parishads prescribe
different scales of pay for each category of
Medical officers no fault could be found with
such prescription."
We fully agree with the above observations and accord-
ingly we hold that in the instant case since the Hearing
Therapist and
969
Audiologist both render professional services and there is
qualitative difference between the two on the basis of
educational qualification the principle of equal pay for
equal work cannot be invoked or applied. The Pay Commission
considered the case of Hearing Therapists and it did not
accept their claim for higher scale of pay. The Pay Commis-
sion was in a better position to judge the volume of work,
qualitative difference and reliability and responsibility
required for the two posts. The Pay Commission made recom-
mendations for pay scales on the basis of value judgment
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
which has an intelligible criteria on the basis of educa-
tional qualifications. The scant material placed before the
Court by the petitioner, is not sufficient to hold that the
recommendations of Pay Commission are without any rational
basis or that it permits discrimination.
The petitioner’s contention that Speech Therapists have
been granted higher scale of pay in other Institutions,
namely, Rohtak Medical College, National Institute for
Hearing Handicapped, Hyderabad, Safdarjang Hospital, and
P.G.I. Chandigarh cannot be taken into consideration as the
petitioner has failed to place any material showing the
duties and functions performed by the Speech Therapist in
the aforesaid Institutions or the qualifications prescribed
for the same. Merely because Speech Therapists performing
similar duties and functions in other Institutions are paid
higher pay scale is no good ground to accept the petition-
er’s claim for equal pay. There may be difference in educa-
tional qualifications, quality and volume of work required
to be performed by the Hearing Therapists in other Institu-
tions. In the absence of any material placed before the
Court it is not possible to record findings that the peti-
tioner is denied equality before law. Moreover, if the
employer is not the same the principle of ’Equal Pay for
Equal Work’ would not be applicable. We do not consider it
necessary to discuss the matter further as the petitioner
has not placed requisite material before the Court for the
application of the principle of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’.
In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion
that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any
discrimination has been practised against him in the matter
relating to pay, therefore the question of application of
the principle of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’ does not arise
and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The peti-
tion fails and is accordingly dismissed but there will be no
order as to costs.
N.V.K. Petition dis-
missed.
970