Holding

The principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply to professional services, and similarity for registration purposes does not confer entitlement to the higher pay scale.

Summary

Dr. C. Girijambal, a holder of a Diploma in Ayurvedic Medicine (D.A.M.), was initially appointed as a Medical Officer in a Zilla Parishad dispensary on a lower pay scale despite the advertisement indicating a higher scale for candidates with G.C.I.M. or L.I.M. qualifications. The High Court had earlier held that she was entitled to Class ‘A’ registration under the Andhra Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1956, and directed the higher pay scale, which was later revised. Subsequent government orders revised pay scales and split the higher scale into two categories, placing her in the lower category (Rs. 430‑800). She appealed to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and then to the Supreme Court, contending that the principle of equal pay for equal work and her Class ‘A’ registration entitled her to the higher scale. The Supreme Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply to professional services and that similarity for registration purposes does not equate to equality in proficiency or pay. Consequently, the State Government’s classification and the lower pay scale were upheld.

Issues considered

The applicability of the principle of equal pay for equal work to medical officers with different qualifications.
Whether a D.A.M. holder, deemed similar to G.C.I.M. for registration under the 1956 Registration Act, is entitled to the same pay scale as G.C.I.M. holders.
Whether the State Government may split a revised pay scale into separate categories for L.I.M. holders and other medical officers.
Whether entitlement to Class ‘A’ registration translates into entitlement to a higher pay scale.

Legislation cited

Subjects

equal pay for equal workprofessional servicesmedical officer pay scaleregistration actClass A registrationAyurvedic medicinediscriminationgovernment orderspay revision

Judgment

782

A DR. C. GIRIJAMBAL
v.
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH
February 11, 1981

B [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, J.J

Con~titution :;f fndia 1950, Article 16-Medical Officers of Dispensaries--
] hrle raJegories-G.C.l.M., L.l.M. and D.A.M. degree holders-Different pay
scale for each category-Whether valid.

Profe.~sional sen ices-Pri11ciple of equal pay for equal work-Whether clin
1

c be invoked.

The appellant was selected for .the post of Medical Officer in the Local
Fund, Ayurvedic Dispensary in the Zilla Parishad. She possessed a Diploma in
Ayurvedic Medicine (D.A.M.). Her salary was fixed in the scale of Rs. 125-
220. Her representation to fix her pay in the higher scale had been rejected
by the State Government on the ground that only candidates with 'A' class
D Registration could be given the higher scale of pay.

Under the Andhra Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Medical Practitioners
Registration Act, 1956 holders of Diploma in Ayurvedic Medicine (D.A.M.),
holders of Graduate of the College of Integrated Medicine (G.C.l.M.) and,
holders of Licentiate in Indigenous Medicine (L.l.M.) were entitled to class
'A' Registration Certificate. Her application to the Andhra Board of Ayurveda
E for registration as 'A' class Practitioner was rejected.

Allowing her petition, impugning the action of the Board of Ayurveda, the
High Court held that being a person p0ssessing a diploma similar to the
G.C.l.M. or L.I.M. she was entitled to be registered in class 'A' and that she
should be given all the benefits of the higher pay scale of Rs. 180-320.
F The scale of pay of Rs. 180-320 for Medical Officers holding L.I.M. was
revised to Rs. 200-400. Sometime later the scales of pay were again revised.
The scale of Rs. 200-400 was split into two categories: (i) Rs. 530-1050 for
Medical Officers holding L.I.M. and (ii) Rs. 430-800 for other Medical Offi-
cers. In the first revision she was given the scale of Rs. 200-400 but under
the second revision she was given only the scale of Rs. 430-800.
G Her representation to the Government for fixing her pa.y in the scale of
Rs. 530-1050 having not been answered, she moved the Andhra Pradesh Ad-
ministrative Tribunal which held that she was not entitled to a higher scale as
she did not possess the requisite qualifications mentioned in the relevant govern-
ment order.

Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that: (1)
H Medical Officers holding the degrees of G.C.I.M. or D.A.M. perform the same
functions and discharge the same duties in dispensaries and that on the principle
of equal pay for equal work,- the appellant should be given the pay scale meant
C. UIRIJAMBAL V. ANDHRA PRADESH 783

fur Medical Officers holding G.C.l,M. because she was entitled to class 'A" Re.. A
gistration Certificate and (2) since she had been fixed in the scale of Rs. 200-
400 under the first revision she should have been fixed under the second reviw
sion in the scale of Rs. 530-1050 alongwith holders of L.l.M.
Dismissing the appeal,
IIELD ; 1. The contention that because her diploma was regarded as similar
or equivalent to G.C.I.M. for registration purposes she should be given the pay B
scale avail•ble to the holder of G.C.l.M. was rightly rejected by the tribunal.
[787 E]

.... 2. The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked invariably
in every kind of service. It cannot be invok~ in the area of professional
services. [786 Pl
ill the instant case by rea.on of the fact that Medi<:al Officers holding the c
qualificatioos uf G.C.I.M. or L.I.M. or D.A.M. were placed incharge of Zilla
Paiishad dispensaries, they cannot be treated on par with each other. If the State
Government or the Zilla Parishads prescribes different scales of pay for each cate-
gory of Medical Officers no fault could be found with such prescription.
[786 H-787 Al
3. The similarity or equality conferred on holders of G.CJ.M.. I.I.M•.and
D.A.M. was for the purposes of registration as practitioners of modern medi~
D
cine under the Registration Act, 1956, and not in the matter of proficiency.
The High Court in its order made it clear that for the purposes of registration
under the Registration Act the appellant as a holder of D.A.M. was similar to
G.C.I.M. and was entitled to class 'A' Registration Certificate. That these three
categories were not equated in the matter of proficiency is borne out from the
fact that right from the beginning the pay scales prescribed for these categories
F.
were different, highest pay scale being available to holders of G.C.I.M. the
next lower being available to holders of L.l,M. and the lowest to medical prac~
titioners other than these two categories. [787 C-D]
4. When the first revision was undertaken, the appellant was put in the pay
scale of Rs. 200-400, the one which was also given to Medical OJ!icers holding
L.I.M. because under the order of the High Court the appellant had been fixed
initially in the scale of Rs. 180-320 and when that pay scale wa. revised to F
Rs. 200-400 she was required to be given that revised scale. When the second
revision was undertaken it was open to the State Government to split the scale
into two categories : one meant for Mroica.l OJ!icers hc>lding I.I.M. and the other
for Medica.l Officers other than L.I.M. Since the appellant was not a holder of
L.J.M. but fell in the other category she was properly fued in the lower revised
pay scale or Rs. 430-800. [787 G-788 A]
G
CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Gvil Appeal No. 1173 of
1979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
18-8-1977 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad
• • in Representation Petition No. 286/77.
H
• M. K. Ramamurthi, Miss R. Vaigai and J, Rama Murthi for the
Appellant.
}

----
784 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A G. N. Rao for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
TULZAPURKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave raises the question
about the eligibility of the appellant to a higher pay scale under
B G.O.M. No. 574 P.R. dated October 20, 1975 with etfect from
November 1, 1974. ,•
The facts giving rise to the question may be stated : the appellant
passed Diploma in Ayurvedic Medicine (DAM) from Kerala
University in the year 1962, having studied this course for four years
C and nine months with one more year of House Surgeoncy. Besides
Ayurvedic Medicine this course consisted of Modern Medicine also.
fhis Diploma is also included in the Second Schedule to the Indian
Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. According to the appellant
the Government of Kerala had treated the holders of D.A.M. on par
with holders of G.C.I.M. (Graduate of the College of Integrated
D Medicine) arid LI.M. (Licentiate in Indigenous Medicine) in regard
to registration of medical practitioners in modern medicine, and all
the three were also entitled to Class 'A' Registration Certificate under
the Andhra Ayurvedic and Homoepathic Medical Practitioners Regis-
tration Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Registration Act').

E In response to the advertisement published by the Zilla Parishad,
Nellore the appellant applied for appointment to the post of Medical
Officer, Local Fund Ayurvedic Dispensary, Duggarajapatnam,
Ncllore District and after an interview on being selected she joined
the duties of the post on December 26, 1963. It appears that her
salary was fixed in tl1e pay scale of Rs. 125-220, though the post
F
carried a higher salary according to the advertisement [in fact the
advertisement mentioned two pay scales for the post-(i) Rs. 220-
425 for candidates holding the qualification of G.C.I.M. with Hou~e
Surgeoncy and (ii) Rs. 180-320 for candidates holding the qualifi-
cation of L.I.M.] The appellant, therefore, made representations to
G the concerned authorities saying that she was entitled to a higher
pay scale but the authorities refused to give her the higher pay
scale on the ground that only candidates with 'A' Class Registration
could be given the scale of Rs. 180--320 and the pay scale of
Rs. 125-220 was for candidates holding qualifications other than 'A'
Class Registration. The appellant, therefore, applied to the Andhra <
H Bc>ard of Ayurveda on payment of requisite fees to register her as 'A'
Class Practitioner and on their refusal to do so she filed writ petition
No. 3507 of 1969 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On a
c. GIRIJAMBAL v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Tulzapurkar, J.) 785

consideration of the provisions of the Registration Act the High Court A
held that the appellant being a person who possessed a Diploma similar
to G .C.I.M. or L.I.M. was entitled to be registered in Class 'A' and
• the High Court further directed the Ziila Parishad that the appellant be
given the higher pay-scale of Rs. 180-320. The High Court's direc-
tions were carried out and the appellant was given all the benefits of
• the higher scale of Rs. 180-320 with retrospective effect from the B
' date of her appointment.

It appears that the pay scales of Medical Officers in Ziila Parishad
and Panchayat Samitis were revised twice, once with effect from
Maich 19, 1969 under G.O.M. No. 708 dated December 11, 1970 c
and second time with effect from November 1, 1974 under G.0.M.
No. 574 P.R. dated October 20, 1975. As per G.O.M. No. 708
the then existing sc:ile of Rs. 220-425 (for M.Os. holding G.C.I.M.)
was revised to Rs. 250-500 and the then existing scale of Rs. 180-
320 (for M.Os. holding L.l.M.) was revised to Rs. 200-400. Under
G.O.M. No. 574 the then existing scale of Rs. 250-500 was again D
revised to Rs. 530-1050 and the existing scale of Rs. 200 to 400
was again revised by splitting the revision into two categories-(i)
Rs. 530 to 1050 for M.Os. holding L.I.M. and (ii) Rs. 430-800
for other Medical Officers. Under the first revision the appellant was
given the scale of Rs. 200-400 and when the second revision was
undertaken she was fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 430-800 E
with effect from November I, 1974. She repres~nted to the Govern-
ment that she should be given the scale of Rs. 530-1050 as was
done for M.Os. holding either G.C.l.M. or L.I.M. but she did not
receive any reply from the Government whereupon the appellant
filed a Representation Petition No. 286 of 1977 before the Andhra
F
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking the relief of revised pay
scales contending that since in the earlier writ petition No. 3507 of
1969 the High Court had accepted that her qualifications were
similar or equivalent to holders of G.C.I.M. which entitled her to
Class 'A' Registration, she was entitled to the scale of pay meant
for Medical Officers holding G.C.I.M. from the date of her appoint- G
ment and the benefits of all the revisions in that scale. Alternatively
she contended that in any event at the time of the second revision
she should have been treated on par with holders of L.I.M. and
not lower and should have been fixed in the scale of Rs. 530-1050
and not Rs. 430-800. The Tribunal rejected the Representation
• Petition holding that the appellant was not entitled to higher scale as H
she did not possess the requisite qualifications mentioned in the
3--214 SCI/81

..
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

A G.O.M. 574 dated October 20, 1975, and hence the appeal to this
Court.

Counsel for the appellant reiterated before us the same two con-
tentions which were urged before the Tribunal. In the first place •
counsel pointed out that in the earlier writ proceedings the High Court
8 had accepted the position that the appellant's qualifications were
similar to the holders of G.C.I.M. and like the latter she was entitled •
I

to Class 'A' Registration and he, therefore, urged that the appellant
was entitled to the pay scale meant for Medical Officers holding
G.C.I.M. right from the date of her appointment, namely, December
26, 1963, and the benefits of all the revisions of that scale. In
c support of this contention counsel sought to invoke the principle of
equal pay for equal work as, according to him, Medical Officers
holdin·g either G.C.I.M. or D.A.M. perform the same functions and
discharge the same duties in dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis. Secondly, in the alternative counsel contended
that in any event the appellant could not be regarded as holder of
D
any lower qualification than a Medical Officer holding L.I.M. inas-
much as under the first revision effected by G.O.M. No. 708 both
had been fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 200-400 and, there-
fore, when the second revision was effected under G.O.M. No. 574
the appellant should have been fixed in the revised scale of
E Rs. 530-1050 alongwith holders of L.I.M. and there was no justifi.
cation for giving her a lower revised scale of Rs. 430-800. For the
reasons which we shall presently indicate it is not possible to accept
either of these contentions.

F
Dealing with the first contention we would like to observe at the
outset that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be
invoked or applied invariably in every kind of service and certainly
it cannot be invoked in the area of professional services when tl1ese
are to be compensated. Dressing of any injury or wound is done
both by a doctor as well as a compounder, but surely it carmot be
...
suggested that for doing this job a doctor cannot be compensated
G more than the compounder. Similarly, a case in Court of law is
argned both by a senior and a junior lawyer, but it is difficult to
accept that in matter of remuneration both should be 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 in-
applicable. In the instant case Medical Officers holding the qualifi-
H cation of G.C.I.M., or the qualification of L.l.M. or the qualification •
of D.A.M., though in charge of dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads, I
crumot, lherefore, be treated on par with each other and if the State
c. GIR!JAMBAL v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Tulzapurkar, J.) 787

Government or the Zilla Parishads prescribe different scales of pay A
for each category of Medical Officers no fault could be found with
such prescription. The gravamen of the appellant's contention has
• been that in earlier proceedings the High Court had accepted the
position that a holder of D.A.M. (like the appellant) was similar to
the holder of G.C.l.M. and as such the appellant alongwith the holders
B
• of G.C.l.M. was entitled to Class 'A' Registration Certificate and,
therefore, in the matter of remuneration she should have been treated
'
in the same manner as the holder of G .C.l.M. all thrcmghout her
service. However, it needs to be clarified that the similarity or
equality conferred on holders of G.C.l.M., L.I.M. and D.A.M. was
for the purpose of their registration as practitioner of modern medi-
cine under the Registration Act, 1956, all being put under Class 'A'
c
Registration and not in the matter of proficiency. The High Court
in its order bad also made it clear that for the purposes of registration
under the Registration Act the appellant as a holder of D.A.M. was
similar to G.C.l.M. and was entitled to Class 'A' Registration Certi...
ficate. That these three categories were not equated in the matter D
of proficiency will be amply borne out by the fact that right from
the beginning the pay scales prescribed for these categories werd
different, highest pay scale being available to holders of G.C.l.M.
the next lower being available to holders of L.l.M. and the lowest
to Medical Practitioners other than G.C.l.M. and L.l.M. The con-
tention of the appellant, therefore, that because her Diploma was E
regarded as similar or equivalent to G.C.l.M. for registration purposes
she should be given the pay scale tbat was available to the holder of
G.C.I.M. r.annot obvionsly be accepted and in our view, it was rightly
rejected by the Tribunal.

F
The alternative contention also is liable to be rejected on the
"- same basis. It is true that when the revision under G.O.M. No. 708
was undertaken the appellant was put in the pay scale of Rs. 200--400
which was also the pay scale prescribed for Medical Officers holding
L.I.M. but that was because under the earlier order of the High Court
tl1e appellant had been fixed initially in the pay scale of Rs. I 80-- G
320-the pay scale also meant for Medical Officers holding L.l.M.
and when that pay scale of Rs. 180--320 was revised to Rs. 200--400
she was required to be given that revised scale. When the second
revision was undertaken as per G.O.M. No. 574 it was perfectly open
to the State Government to split the revision into two categories, one
meant for Medical Officers holding L.l.M. and the other for Medical
Officers other than L.l.M. as has been done in the instant case and H
since the appellant was not a holder of L.I.M. but fell in the other
A
788 SUPREME ·COURT REPORTS (1981) 2 S.C.R.

category she was, in our view, properly fixed in the lower revised pay
t
'
scale of Rs. 43()....800.
As no other contention was urged the appeal is dismissed, but
we make no order as to costs.

N.V.K. Appeal dismissed. .•

-L

I