Holding

The doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked; the State's policy on non‑practicing allowance is a permissible administrative decision and does not constitute unconstitutional discrimination.

Summary

Manudevarya, a Research Assistant with the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy, received a non‑practicing allowance (NPA) of Rs.75 while doctors and physicians in the same institution received Rs.150. The Government issued a policy in 1991 enhancing NPA for doctors and physicians in pay scales Rs.2000‑3500 and above, but excluded lower‑pay‑scale posts, though existing incumbents could continue at the old rate. Manudevarya filed a writ petition seeking the enhanced NPA; the High Court allowed it, holding that the differential treatment amounted to hostile discrimination under Articles 14 and 39(d). The Union appealed, and the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work could not be invoked because the allowance is a matter of policy, not a legal right, and the differential treatment does not infringe any legal right or cause financial loss to other classes. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the doctrine of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution applies to the differential rates of non‑practicing allowance.
Whether the State's policy decision on the quantum of non‑practicing allowance can be challenged as unconstitutional discrimination.
Whether the differential treatment of research assistants vis‑à‑vis doctors and physicians amounts to a violation of the right to equality.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 309 (proviso), s. Article 39(d)

Subjects

equal paydiscriminationnon‑practicing allowanceservice lawpolicy decisionconstitutional lawadministrative lawArticle 14Article 39(d)Article 309

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
v.
MANUDEVARYA

APRIL 27, 2004

[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 39(d)-Doctrine of equt1l
pay for equal work-Non-practicing allowance not enhanced for. the posts C
below certain pay scale under a policy decision-Claim for enhancement
commensurate with the higher pay-scale-Non-enhancement held to be
discriminatory by High Court-On appeal, held: Fixation of allowance is a
matter of policy-Employees cannot claim the same as a matter of right-If
higher amount of allowance is paid to one branch of employees without D
causing any financial loss to other branch of employees, it would not amount
to unequal treatment-A policy decision of State unless affects somebody's
legal rights cannot be questioned-Administrative Law-Policy Decision.

Respondent, a Research Assi~tant with Central Council for Research
in Homeopathy was getting Non-practicing Allowance in pre-revised scale E
(revised scale 1400-2300). Doctors and Physicians were also getting the
allowance. Appellant laid down a policy decision whereby Non-practicing
Allowance of the doctors and physicians in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3500
was enhanced. It also inter alia provided that the allowance was not admissible
to the holders of the posts in pay scale lower than Rs. 2000-3500. However, it
protected those already in receipt of the allowance. Respondent's claim for F
enhanced rate of the allowance was not allowed.

Writ Petition claiming enhanced rate of allowance was allowed by Single
Judge of High Court holding that doctors/physicians and the Research
Officers could not be treated differently and State having not enhanced Non- G
Practicing Allowance of the respondent made hostile discrimination without
there being any reasonable ground for making a differential treatment.
Division Bench summarily dismissed the appeal.

In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that doctrine of equal pay
717 H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A for equal work could not have been invoked and High Court interfered with
the policy decision of Central Government in fixing the allowance for different
categories of employees.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

B HELD: 1. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work could not be invoked
in a case of this nature. The doctors and physicians, who were appointed on
the Allopathic side and were drawing a higher.scale of pay, could be treated
differently. Only because at one point of time the Research Assistants and
the Doctors had been given the benefit ofNon-Practicin·g Allowance, the same
C by itself would not mean that a discrimination has been meted out If without
causing any financial loss to the incumbents of the other branch of employees
and having regard to the fact that they form a class by themselves, a higher
amount of Non-Practicing Allowance is granted to the Doctors and Physicians, •
I-
tl~e same by itself would not lead to an unequal treatment.
(721-G-H; 722-A-B)
D 2. The State in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the proviso
appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to fix the
conditions of service of its employees. In absence of any rule framed in this
belfalf, such conditions of service can be fixed by reason of an executive
instruction. No Non-Practicing Allowance was to be paid to the holder of posts
E in the scale of pay lower than Rs. 2000-3500. However, in the case of the
existing incumbents who had been receiving Non-Practicing Allowance, the
same was directed to be continued. (721-E-F)

3. A policy decision of the State unless affects somebody's legal right,
cannot be questioned. The question is as to whether certain allowances would
F be paid to a section of employees or not and that too at what rate, is basically
a question of policy. The concerned employees cannot claim Non-Practicing
Allowance as a matter of right [722-C)

Joint Action Cauncil of Service Doctors' Organisations and Ors. v.
Union of India and Anr., [1996] 7 SCC 256, relied on.
G
4. Although a discrimination can be inferred in relation to certain types
of allowances but Non-Practicing Allowance would stand on a somewhat
different footing. (722-F-G]

Dr. Ms. O.Z Hussain v. Union of India, (1990] Supp. SCC 688, referred
U.0.1. v. M.D. ARYA [SINHA, J.] 719

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6519of1999. A
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.98 of the Gauhati High Court
in Writ Appeal No. 6 (SH) of 1996
A.K. Panda, Hemant Sharma, D.S. Mehra and Arvind Kumar Sharma for
the Appellants.
B
Respondent in person. (Not present)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order
dated 07.08.1998 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in
Writ Appeal No. 6of1998 whereby and whereunder it refused to interfere with
c
the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court
allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent herein.
The respondent was appointed as Research Assistant (H) with the
Central Council for Research in Homeopathy on or about 28.09.1987 in the D
pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 425-700 (revised 1400-2300). He had been getting
Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) at the rate of Rs. 75 in the pre-revised scale
of pay. The doctors and physicians, however, were getting Non-Practicing
Allowance in the pre-revised pay scale at the rate of Rs. 150. Non-Practicing
Allowance of the doctors and physicians in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500
was revised with effect from l. l .1986 in terms of an order of the Government E
of India dated 27.02.1991. A representation was made by the respondent
claiming the enhanced rate of Non-Practicing Allowance which was not allowed.
A writ petition thereafter was filed by the respondent herein before the High
Court praying for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing
the appellant herein to pay Non-Practicing Allowance at the enhanced rate
which should be commensurate to the revision in the Non-Practicing Allowance
F ,
paid to the doctors and physicians.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court formulated a question for
his determination as to whether the respondent herein had been made victim
of hostile· discrimination by the appellant by reason of non grant of any
enhancement on the Non-Practicing Allowance. Applying the principles laid G
down in Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India, the learned Single
Judge held that the doctors and physicians on the one hand and the Research
Officers in Homeopathic department, on the other, cannot be treated differently
and thus, the appellants must be held to have made hostile discrimination
without there being any reasonable ground for making a differential treatment H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A in the matter of enhancement of Non-Practicing Allowance payable to the
respondent.

The said judgment of the learned Single Judge on appeal preferred by
the appellants herein was summarily dismissed by a non-speaking order by
a Division Bench of the High Court.
B
Mr. A.K. Panda, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the
appellants, would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in
invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work and thereby interfered with
the policy decision of the Central Government in fixing the Non-Practicing
C Allowance for different categories of employees.

It is not in dispute that the Government of India Jal~ down a policy
decision as regards grant of Non-Practicing Allowance in terms of its letter
dated 27.02.1991 addressed to the Director, Central Council for Research in
Ayurveda, Sidda, stating :
D "I am directed to invite a reference to this Ministry's letter No. 28015/
21/780 AY Desk ISM Vol. I Part-I dated 10th Dec. 1981, on the subject
mentioned above and I say that the question regarding continuation
of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) or revision of its rates in the
context of the revised scales of pay effective from l. l .1986 has been
E under consideration of the Government some time past. It has now
been decided that the ISM and H. Physicians in·the scale of Rs. 2000-
3500 and above may be allowed Non-Practicing Allowance at the rate
and from the dates indicated below :
Pay range in the Rate of NPA from
revised scale 1.1.96 from the date
F of option for revised scale
of pay whichever is later.

A.
(0 Basic pay from . Rs.600
G Rs. 2000 to 2999
(ii) Basic pay from Rs.800
Rs. 3000 to 3699
(iii) Basic pay from Rs.900
Rs. 3700 to above
H
U.0.1. v. M.D. ARYA [SINHA, J.] 721

With effect from A
1.10.1997
(i) Basic pay from
2000 to 2999 Rs.600
(it) Basic pay from
Rs. 3000 to 3699 Rs.850 B
(fu) Basic pay from Rs.950
Rs. 3700 to 5900
(iv) Basic pay from Rs. 1000
Rs. 6000 and above
2. No Non-practicing allowance will be admissible to the holders of C
posts in scale of pay lower than Rs. 2000-3500. However, to protect
the existing incumbents who are already in receipt of HPA, Non-
Practicing Allowance may be continued with reference to the rates
related to notional pay in the pre-revised scales as indicated in this
Ministry's letter dated 19.12.1981. D
3. While extending Non-Practicing Allowance to the employees it may
be ensured that they have not been allowed private practice. Such
employees may be allowed Non-Practicing Allowance from the date
such orders, if any, issued are withdrawn."

The State in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the proviso E
appended to. Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to fix the
conditions of service of its employees. In absence of any rule framed in this
behalf, such conditions of service can be fixed by reason of an executive
instruction. From a perusal of para 2 of the said letter dated 27.2.1991, it would
appear that no Non-Practicing Allowance was to be paid to the holders of F ,
posts in the scale of pay lower than Rs. 2000-3500. However, in the case of
the existing incumbents who had been receiving Non-Practicing Allowance,
the same was directed to be continued.

We fail to see as to how the doctrine of equal pay for equal work could
be invoked in a case of this nature. The doctors and physicians, who were G
appointed on the Allopathic side and were drawing a higher scale of pay,
could be treated differently. Only because at one point of time the Research
Assistant and the Doctors had been. given the benefit of Non-Practicing
Allowance, the same by itself would not mean that a discrimination has been
meted out. The respondent was employed as Research Assistant and was H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A getting Non-Practicing at the rate of Rs.75 per month on the pay scale of Rs.
1400-2300. The doctors and the physicians, however, were on the pay scale
of Rs. 2000-3500 and had been getting Non-Practicing Allowance at the rate
of Rs. 150 per month. Subsequently, if without causing any financial loss to
the incumbents of the other branch of employees and having regard to the
B fact that they form a class by themselves, a higher amount ofNon-P1acticing
Allowance is granted to the Doctors and Physicians, the same by itself, in
our considered opinion, would not lead to an unequal treatment.

A policy decision of the State unless affects somebody's legal right,
cannot be questioned. The question is as to whether certain allowances
C would be paid to a section of employees or not and th,at too at what rate, is
basically a question of policy. The concerned employees cannot claim Non-
Practicing Allowance as a matter of right.

A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Joint ·
Action Council of Service Doctors' Organisations and Ors v. Union of India
D and Anr., [1996] 7 sec 256, wherein it was held:

"According to us, the present is basically a question of policy and
the claim in this regard is not founded on any right as such. Insofar
as the policy is concerned, there may be some justification for excluding
the non-practicing allowance for the purpose at hand because this
E allowance is seemingly not paid to all the Service Doctors. So, if this
allowance is included for the purpose at hand, the same may be
disadvantageous even to some Service Doctors. We do not say more
than this as this matter is presently under examination of the Vth Pay
Commission."

F It is futther trite that although a discrimination can be inferred in relation
to certain types of allowances but Non-Practicing Allowance would stand on
a somewhat different footing. [See Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India,
[1990] Supp. sec 688].

For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the impugned
G judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is
allowed. However, as nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent, there
shall be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

r