Holding

The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked invariably in professional services, and classification based on educational qualifications and responsibilities is constitutionally permissible.

Summary

M.R. Kanojia, appointed as a Teacher Coordinator and later redesignated as a Hearing Therapist at AIIMS, sought to have his salary raised to the pay scale of Speech Pathologists and Audiologists, claiming that he performed the same work and that the State violated Articles 14, 16 and the Directive Principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d). The respondents argued that the posts differed in required educational qualifications, duties and responsibilities, and that the classification of posts was a permissible exercise of state power. The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine of equal pay for equal work could be applied to professional services and held that it cannot be invoked invariably, especially where there is a qualitative difference in qualifications and responsibilities. The Court found that the petitioner had not produced material to prove that the duties of a Hearing Therapist were identical to those of an Audiologist or other senior posts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

The applicability of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Article 39(d) to professional services.
Whether a Hearing Therapist is entitled to the same pay scale as Audiologists, Speech Pathologists and other senior therapeutic posts based on alleged similarity of work.
Whether classification of posts based on educational qualifications and responsibilities violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 39(d)

Subjects

equal pay for equal workprofessional serviceseducational qualificationsArticle 39(d)Article 14Article 16pay scale classificationdiscriminationwrit petitionAIIMS

Judgment

MEWA RAM KANOJIA A
v.
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE.OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.

MARCH 9, 1989

[K.N. SINGH AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY JJ.) B

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
responsibilities of posts.
c
)'- 'Hearing Therapist'-'Senior Speech Pathologist'-'Senior
Physiotherapist'-'Senior Occupational Therapist'-'Audiologist'-
' Speech Pathologist'-Different scales of pay for the posts--Permissi-
bility of.
D
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 Council of Medical Research. As the unit
~ where the petitioner was employed was taken over by the AU 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 Co- E
ordinator in the Institute. Though the post was redesignated as 'Hear-
ing 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 Commission
the pay scale of 'Hearing Therapist was revised to Rs.425-700 with F
effect from l.l.1973, and since then the petitioner continued to draw
salary in the said scale.

The petitioner made several representations to the respondent-
authorities to revise his pay scale and to place him in the pay scale
prescribed for 'Speech Pathologist' and 'Audiologist' viz. Rs.650-1200. G
Since no relief was granted the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction ofihis
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 functions as 'Senior Speech
Pathologist', 'Senior Physio Therapist', 'Senior Audiologist' and H
')57
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A 'Speech Pathologist' that the qualifications prescribed for the aforesaid
posts are almost similar and they are working in the same institution
under the same employer, yet the respondent-authorities practised dis-
crimination 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
B similar posts of 'Speech Therapist', 'Senior Speech Pathologist', 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 organisations like Safdarjuog Hospital, PGI Chandigarh,
and Medical College, Rohtak. The respondents having thus failed to
implement the Directive Principle of 'Equal pay for equal work' as
c 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 respondents 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.

D The respondents contested the writ petition by asserting that the
petitioner cannot compare himself with 'Senior Speech Therapist'.
'Senior Physio Therapist', 'Senior Occupational Therapist', 'Audio-
logist' 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
E 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. 1
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court,
F
HELD: The principle of 'Equal pay for equal work' cannot he
invoked invariably in every kind of service, particularly, in the area of
professional services. [967H]

Dr. C. Girijambal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 11981] 2
G 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 he had not only to
H the duties and functions bot also to the educational qualifications,
M.R. KANOJIA v. A.1.1.M.S. 959

..,.. qualitative difference and the measures of responsibility prescribed for A
the respective posts. Even if the duties and functions are of similar
nature but if the educational qualitications 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) 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 & Ors v. Union of
India & Ors., [1975) 1 SCR 449; Federation of All India Customs & c
Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 91 and State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sh. J.P. Chaurasia &
>-- Ors., [1989) 1SCC121 referred to.

Merely because Speech Therapists performing similar duties and
D
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 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 fol' equal work'
... would not be applicable. (969E-F)
E
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 educational qualifications, duties and
responsibilities of the post. The principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal
v
1,.
Work' is applicable when employees holding the same rank perform
F
similar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibilities are
~, treated differently. The application of the doctrine would arise where
employees are equal in every respect but they are denied equality In
matters relating to the seal<: of pay. The principle of 'Equal Pay for
Equal Work' has been enforced by this Court. [962D-F]
G
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 andlai Pal & Ors. v. State
of Haryana & Ors., [1988) 3 SCC 354, referred to. H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

While considering the question of application of principle of
A
'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 reason-
able nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the
administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay
B scale but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus
and the classification is founded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it
would be violative 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.
c
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Gobinda Mukhoty and K.N. Rai for the Petitioner.

D A. Mariarputham for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SINGH, J. By means of this p~tition under Article 32 of the
Constitution the petitioner has raised a grievance that the Respon-
E dent-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.

F 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.210-425 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
G special assistance of the Social Rehabilitation Services (formerly Voca-
tional Rehabilitation Administration). The aforesaid unit was taken
over by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 1.7.1970 along- 'f,
with 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
H post of Teacher Coordinator in the Institute. On the recom,mendation
M.R. KANOJJA v. A.I.I.M.S. [SINGH, J.] 961

of the Head of the Department of Rehabilitation Unit the petitioner's
A
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.210!
425. In pursuance to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commis-
sion as adopted by the Institute the pay scale of Hearing Therapist was
revised to Rs.425-700 with effect from l. l. l973. Since then the
petitioner has continued to draw salary in the pay scale of Rs.425-700. B
The petitioner made several representations to the respondent-
authorities to revise his pay scale and to place him in the pay scale
prescribed· for the "Speech Pathologist" 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.
c
The petitioner's main grievance is that 'Hearing Therapist'
perform the same duties and functions as 'Senior Speech Pathologist',
'Senior Physiotherapist', 'Senior Occupational Therapist', 'Audiolo-
gist', and 'Speech Pathologist', yet the respondents have practised
discrimination in paying salary to the petitioner in a lower scale of pay. D
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' E
although it has granted higher scale of pay for similar posts of 'Speech
Therapist', 'Senior Speech Pathologist' and 'Audiologist'. 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 F
Hearing Handicapped, Hyderabad. The petitioner contends that the
respondents have failed to implement the Directive Principles 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 G
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
wit!: effect from 1.1.1973. In defence the respondents 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 H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A 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,
functions and responsibilities of the posts. The petitioner is not
entitled to equate himself with the incumbents holding the posts of
B Senior Speech Therapist, Senior Physiotherapist, Senior Occupational
Therapist, Audiologist and Speech Therapist. The petitioner's plea of
discrimination is emphatically denied.

The doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" is not expressly
declared.a fundamental right under the Constitution. But Article 39{d)
read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution declares the constitu-
C tional 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 emp-
D loyer should not be treated differently 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
E 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] 1SCC618; Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U.P., [1986] l
-
F 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'.
G
While considering the question of application of principle of
'Equal Pay for Equal Work' it has to be borne in mind that it is open to Y
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
H in the adrninistration, the State would be justified in prescribing
M.R. KANOJIA v. A.1.1.M.S. {SINGH, J.] 963

different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the test of A
-f reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on unreal, and
unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
f• Constitution. Equality must be among the equals, Unequals cannot
claim equality.
B
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 petitioner confined the petitioner's case for parity with
'Audiologist' only. He urged that the educational qualifications, duties
and functions of 'Hearing Therpist', and 'Audiologist' are similar, if c
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 D
the patient to facilitate maximum expressive and receptive communi-
cation skill. An 'Audiologist' pertains to the science of hearing. His
work is designed to coordinate the separate professional skills which
contribute to study, treatment and rehabilitation of persons with
impaired hearing. A person holding the post of Audiologist is a
"' specialist in the non-medical evaluation, habilitation and rehabi-
Iitation of those who suffer from language and speech disorders.
E
Gen.erally, Hearing Therapist and Audiologist both perform duties
...._ and functions is helping rehabilitation of patients suffering from hear-
ing 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
F
j or similar as that performed by an Audiologist. The petitioner has
' placed reliance on a certificate issued by the Head of Department of
Otorhinolaryngolgy which enumerates duties, functions which the
petitioner has been performing while working as Hearing Therapist.
According to this certificate the petitioner bas been carrying out the
following functions:
G
" 1. Diagnosis of the impairment of hearing cases. (Detailed
diagnosis).

2. Audiological evaluation i.e. hearing aid evaluation, hearing
and prescription and autitory training. H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989] 1 S.C.R.

3. Parent counselling and guidance.
A
4. Referring to different experts for their opm10n such as
Physiotherapist, Occupational Therapist, Clinical Psycho-
logist, Ear Mould Technician, Paediatrician, Paediatric
Neurologist and Opthalmologist, Audiometry Technical and
B 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
c children.

8. Guidance to the teachers of normal schools where there is
any hard of hearing case is studying.

D 9. Writing of papers and books on the basis of personal experi-
ence and research.

10. Speech therapy to normal hearing persons as and when re-
ferred to them.

E 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 hearing loss
cases."
F
The petitione{bas, however, failed to palce 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 perfor-
G med by an Audiologist more so when the respondents have denied the
petitioner's claim in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner's claim that
he performs the same duties and functions as those performed by an
Audiologist under the same employer cannot therefore be accepted.

Even assuming that the petitioner performs similar duties and
H functions as those performed by an Audiologist, it is not sufficienLto
j

M.R. KANOJIA v. A.1.1.M.S. [SINGH, J.] 965

uphold his claim for equal pay. As already observed, in judging the A
equality of work for the purposes of equal pay, regard must be had not
only fo the duties and functions but also to the educational qualifica-
tions, 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 responsi-
B
bilities, 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 Therapisr are as
under:

Audiologist Qualifications Hearing Therapist Qualifications c
Essential Essential

1. A graduate in Science/ I. A graduate in Science or
Arts or Medicines, from Arts of a recognised Univer-
a recognised University. sity in India or abroad.
D
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 teach~g/ 3. Teaching experience at a E
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
F

a recognised University .

. 2. Practical experience of
working in a speech and
Hearing Rehabilitation G
Centre.

3. Journalistic or literary
activity in relation to
Audiology.
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19891 1 S.C.R.

A perusal of the above chart would show that different educational
A
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 essen-
tial qualification for the said post. A comparison of the qualifications
B prescribed for the two posts clearly indicates that higher qualification
is prescribed for the post of Audiologist. There appears to be qualita-
tive difference in the responsibilities 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 educa-
c tional 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 educational
D qualifications have been recognised as a valid basis for classification.
In State of Mysore v. Narasingh Rao, [196811SCR407 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 matricu-
E late 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 performing 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
F 16 of the Constitution. In Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli, t-
[ 19731 3 sec 592 classification made on the basis of educational
qualification for purposes of promotion was upheld by this Court on
the ground that the classification made on the basis of such a require-
ment was not without reference to the objectives sought to be achieved
and there could be no question of discrimination. In State of Jammu &
G Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khose & Ors., [1974) 1 SCC 19 cadre of
Assistant Engineers included of Degree holders and Diploma-holders,
they constituted 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
H service no such restriction was prescribed for Degree-holders. The
M.R. KANOJIA v. A.1.1.M.S. [SINGH, J.] 967

Diploma-holder Assistant Engineers challenged the validity of the rule
A
on the ground that it denied them equal opportunity of promotion, in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On a detailed
consideration a Constitution Bench of this Court upheld the classifica-
tion on the ground of difference in educational qualification. The
Court held that classification founded on the basis of educational
qualification had a reasonable nexus to achieve administrative effi- B
ciency in Engineering Services. The Court approvingly 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 classification and refused to grant any relief to Diploma-holder
Engineers. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v, Union of India & Ors.
etc., [197.5] 1 SCR 449 another Constitution Bench of this Court up- C
held 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 (Recognised) & D
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 attached to the Joint Secretaries and Officers above
them in the Ministry of Finance was rejected by this Court on the E
ground of the functional requirement of the work done, training and
responsibility prescribed for the two posts. Jn 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 Secretaries, for persons performing the same duties and
having the same responsibilities. In the light of the various decisions of F
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 reasonable classification founded 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 G
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 Pradesh, [1981] 2 SCR782 it was contended H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A
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 func-
tions and discharged the same duties in dispensaries 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 quali-
B fications 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 Doctors it was contended that the
'~>
functions and duties discharged by the three class of doctors in the
dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads were the same and their qualifica-
c tions were also similar and yet the State Government practised dis-
crimination 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:
D
"Dealing with the first contention we would like to observe
at the outset that the principle of equal work cannot be
invoked or applied invariably in every kind of service and
certainly it cannot be invoked in the area of professional
service when these are to be compensated. Dressing of any "'
E in jury or wound is done both by a doctor as well as a
compounder, but surely it cannot be suggested that for
doing this job a doctor cannot be compensated more than
,,.
the compounder. Similarly, a case in Court of law is argued
both by a senior and a junior lawyei , but it is difficult to
accept that in matter of remuneration both should be
\.:
F treated equally. It is thus clear that in the field of rendering )>.
professional services at any rate the principle of equal pay
for equal work would be inapplicable. In the instant case
Medical officers holding the qualification of GCIM, or the
qualification of LIM or the qualification of DAM, thogh in
charge of dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads cannot there-
G fore, be treated 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 accordingly we
H hold that in the instant case since the Hearing Therapist and
M.R. KANOJIA v. A.1.1.M.S. [SINGH, J.J 969

Audiologist both render professional services and there is qualitative A
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 Thera-
pists ahd it did not accept their claim for higher scale of pay. The Pay
CommisS:ion was in a better position to judge the volume of work,
B
qualitative difference and reliability and responsibility required for the
two posts. The Pay Commission made recommendations for pay scales
on the basis of value judgment which has an intelligible criteria on the
basis of educational qualifications. The scant material placed before
the Court by the petitioner, is not sufficient to hold that the recom-
mendations of Pay Commission are without any rational basis or that it
permits discrimination. c
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
D
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 qlllllifications prescribed
for the same. Merely because Speech Therapfats 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. There may
be difference in educational qualifications, quality and volume of work E
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 petitioner 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 F
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 ques- G
tion of application of the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' does
Y not arise and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.

N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
H