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