### Entitlement to Parity in Pay Scales for Equivalent Medical Administrative Roles Across Departments Case Summary: 1. Facts: The petitioner, a retired Director of Employees State Insurance Services (ESIS) under the Labour Department, sought pay scale parity with the Director of the Public Health & Family Welfare Department. The petitioner contended that following the bifurcation of departments, he was allocated to the Labour Department but performed duties and responsibilities identical to, or more onerous than, his counterparts in the Health Department. Despite representations and a 2010 acknowledgment of the pay anomaly by the State, the process of upgrading the scale remained in abeyance. 2. Issues: * Whether the Director of ESIS is entitled to the same pay scale as the Director of Public Health & Family Welfare based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work." * Whether the classification of pay scales between identical administrative medical posts in different departments is discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Arguments: * Petitioner: Relied on *State of M.P. v. Dr. A.K. Singhal* and *Shailu Mangal v. State of M.P.*, where the courts held that Assistant Surgeons in ESIS and Public Health carry identical duties and must be treated as one group. The petitioner argued that as an HOD in ESIS, he faced arbitrary discrimination. * Respondent (State): Did not contest the merits extensively but suggested that the petition could be disposed of by directing the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s claim in light of existing judicial precedents. 4. Court's Reasoning and Order: The Court noted that previous Division Bench rulings had already established that medical officers in both departments fall into the same group regarding the nature of work. Without adjudicating on the final merits, the Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation via a reasoned and speaking order, specifically considering the parity principles established in *Shailu Mangal*. Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the petitioner’s representation for pay parity and pension revision within three months.

The petitioner, originally appointed in the Health Department and later allocated to the Labour Department, rose to the position of Director, Employees State Insurance Services (ESIS).

He filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging pay scale discrimination.

He contended that despite performing duties and responsibilities similar to or heavier than those of the Director of the Public Health & Family Welfare Department, he was being paid a lower salary and consequently receiving a lower pension.

The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to complete the pay scale upgrade process despite his persistent representations and an admission by the State in previous litigation regarding the parity of duties between the two departments.

Whether the respondents’ failure to grant the petitioner a pay scale equivalent to the Director of Public Health & Family Welfare Department constitutes a violation of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the reconsideration of his pay anomaly in light of judicial precedents establishing parity between ESIS and Health Department medical officers.

The Court considered the principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It referenced the precedent set in State of M.P. & another v. Dr. A.K. Singhal, which held that Assistant Surgeons in the ESIS and Public Health Departments carry identical duties and must be treated fairly to avoid unreasonable classification.

The Court further relied on Shailu Mangal v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 6770/2008), where the Division Bench observed that Medical Officers in the ESIS are at par with those in the Public Health Department regarding nature of work and eligibility for quotas.

The Court noted the petitioner's argument that the duties of the Director of ESIS are identical to those of the Director of Public Health, yet the pay scales remain disparate.

The State’s counsel did not contest the merits but suggested that the matter be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority for reconsideration based on the Shailu Mangal precedent.

The Court, without expressing a final opinion on the merits, found it appropriate to mandate an administrative review.

It reasoned that since previous judicial observations established parity between the two departments' medical staff, the Executive must determine if such parity extends to the rank of Director and address the alleged discrimination through a reasoned order.

It ordered the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority within one month.

The respondent/authority is directed to decide the representation in light of the Shailu Mangal judgment by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the court order.

Furthermore, the State must provide the petitioner with a personal hearing during this consideration.

The Court did not grant the immediate pay scale upgrade but mandated a time-bound administrative adjudication of the petitioner's grievances.