Holding

The classification of pharmacists into two pay scales based on qualifications under the Pharmacy Act is reasonable and does not violate Article 14; the petitioners are entitled only to the lower scale, and excess salary already paid shall not be recovered.

Summary

The petitioners, appointed as Pharmacists Grade‑B in the Northern Railway Central Hospital, were placed in the higher pay scale of Rs 330‑560 despite being qualified only under clause (d) of Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, which entitled them to the lower scale of Rs 330‑480. In 1984 they were ordered to be shifted to the lower scale retrospectively, prompting a challenge on grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of the constitutional principles of equal pay for equal work (Articles 14 and 16). The Supreme Court held that the classification of pharmacists into two categories based on statutory qualifications is a reasonable exercise of governmental power and does not contravene Article 14. Consequently, the petitioners were entitled only to the Rs 330‑480 scale, and the order was not arbitrary. However, the Court directed that any excess salary already paid should not be recovered. The petitions were allowed in part, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the retrospective reduction of pay for pharmacists covered under clause (d) of Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Whether the classification of Pharmacists Grade‑B into two pay scales based on qualifications is arbitrary or discriminatory.
Whether the excess amount already paid to the petitioners can be recovered.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 16
Pharmacy Act, 1948s. 31

Subjects

equal pay for equal workclassificationArticle 14Article 16Pharmacy Actpay scalesdiscriminationservice law

Judgment

A SHYAM BABU VERMA AND ORS.
v. ,.J....-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 8, 1994

B [J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

Service Law:
l

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16-Principle of 'equal pay for >-
c equal work'-Held in equality of men in different groups excludes applicability
of the principle-It is always open to Government to put its employees of
same service in different categories for purpose of scale of pay according to
qualifications possessed by them.

Phannacy Act, 1948: S.31-Phannacists Grade- B-Qualificationwise
D categorisation-Phannacists possession qualifications under cl(a) to cl(c) put
in Pay scale of Rs. 330-56(}-Those covered under clause (d) put in pay scale
of Rs. 330- 48<>-Held, no fault can be found with the Government in putting "?---
Phamiacists Grade-B ilJ two categories of pay scales according to their
Qualification and experience.
E The petitionerwere appointed as Pharmacists Grade-Bin the North-
em Railway Central Hospital, in the scale of Rs. 130- 240. On the recom-
mendation of the Third Pay Commission, two pay scales were provided for
Pharmacist Grade-B w.e.f. 1973. Pharmacists possessing qualifications
prescribed in clauses (a) to (c) of s. 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 were -·L
F given the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 and those covered under clause (d) of
s. 31 were pro'Vided the pay scale of Rs. 330-480. The petitioners, though
covered under clause (d) of s. 31, were getting the revised scale of Rs.
330-560 since 1973. By the orders dated 15.6.1984, the petitioners were
informed that as they were covered by clause (d) ors. 31 of the Pharmacy
Act, 1948, their salary was being fixed in the scale of Rs. 330-480 instead
G
of Rs. 330-560 and that after completion of 10 years of service, they would
be getting the scale of Rs. 330-560.
-~
The petitioners filed the writ petition before this Court challenging
the validity of the order. It was contended that sudden reduction of the
-H pay scale retrospectively had not only put them to financial loss but even
700
)
SHYAM BABU v. U.0.1. (N.P. SINGH, J.] 701

affected their seniority; the order was arbitrary and discriminatory in A
nature and on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' they were entitled
to the pay scale of Rs. 330-560, as they had been performing the same
nature of work which was being performed by other Pharmacists Grade-B
in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560.

Disposing of the Writ Petitions, this Court B

HELD: 1.1. Admittedly, the petitioners do not hold the qualifications
mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 31 of the Act and they are
only covered by clause (d) of Section 31. Once is is established that the
petitioners do not belong to the class of Pharmacists who possessed the C
qualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of Section 31 for whom the
separate scale of pay was recommended by the Third Pay Commission,
which was accepted by the Government and implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1975,
the petitioners cannot claim the same scale. (705-D-H]

1.2. It is always open to the Government to put its employees in the D
same service in different categories for the purpose of the scale of pay,
according to the qualifications possessed by them. When s. 31 itself con-
ceive of different types of Pharmacists with reference to their academic
qualifications and experience, then no fault can be found either with the
Third Pay Commission or the respondents in putting the Pharmacists E
Grade-B in two categories with reference to their qualifications and ex-
perience and prescribing two scales of pay. In most of the services, the
scale of pay is linked with the academic performance, experience and it
cannot be held that for one service, there should be only one scale of pay,
ignoring the persons, who possess the higher qualifications. [706-A-C]
F
2.1. Inequality of the men in the different groups, excludes ap-
plicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to them. The nature
of work may be more or less same, but scale of pay vary based on academic
qualification or experience which justifies classification. The principle of
'equal pay for equal work' should not be applied in a mechanical or casual G
manner. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and
analysis of the work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons
which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable. Before ·any
direction is issued by the Court, the claimants have to establish that there
was no reasonable basis to treat them separately in matters of payment of
wages or salary. Then only it can be held that there has been a discrimina- H
(
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 1 S.C.R.

A tion, within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution. (706-E, F]

Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartive, (1993) 1 S.C.C. 539, relied on.

2.2. In the instant case, there is no scope for applying the principle
of 'equal pay for equal work', when the petitioners belong to a separate
B category of Pharmacists, with reference to the qualifications prescribed
under the Act. There is no element of arbitrariness in the decision of the
respondents to implement two scales of pay for two categories of Phar-
macists Grade-B. It does not violate any of the provisions of the Constitu-
tion, calling for interference by this Court. (706-G, H; 707-A]
c 2.3. Although the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of
Rs. 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
w.e.f. 1.1.1973, as they have received the scale of Rs. 330-560 since 1973,
due to no fault of theirs, and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984
with effect from 1.1.1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover
D any excess amount which has already been paid to them. (707-B]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions (C) Nos. 12897
to 12899 of 1984.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
E
G. Viswanatha Iyer, S.N. Singh, B.M. Sharma and M.L. Srivastava
for the Petitioners.

C.V. Sobba Rao and Hemant Sharma for the Respondents.

p The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N.P. SINGH, J. 1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion have been filed on behaH of the three petitioners, questioning the
validity of an order dated 15.6.1984, issued by the Chief Superintendent.
Central Hospital (Northern Railway), New Delhi.
G 2. After the petitioners had been duly registered as Pharmacists by
the Registrar. Uttar Pradesh State Pharmacy Council they were appointed
as pharmacists in the Northern Railway. Central Hospital, in the scale of
Rs. 130-240. Since 1973 petitioner started getting the revised scale of Rs.
330-560. A seniority list of Pharmacists in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 was
H prepared, in which names of the petitioners were also included. The
)
SHYAM BABU v. U.O.L [N.P. SINGH, J.] 703

impugned orders dated 15.6.1984 were issued to the petitoners, saying that A
as they were covered by clause (d) of Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). their salary was being fixed in the
scale of Rs. 330-480 instead of Rs. 330-560 with effect from 1973. It was
further said that after completion of 10 years of service, they would be
getting the scale of Rs. 330-560. There is no dispute that after completion
of 10 years of service, petitioners have been getting the scale of Rs. 330-560. B
According to the petitioners, the sudden reduction of the scale of pay from
Rs. 330-560 to Rs. 330-480, after several years of the implemention of the
said scale, has not only affected financially but even the seniority of the
petitioners.

3. it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that aforesaid C
order dated 15.6.1984, had been issued in view of the Railway Board letter
dated 12.8.1975. It was pointed out that as the petitioners were not
qualified Pharmacists, possessing the qualifications mentioned in clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of Sections 31and32 of the Act, they were not entitled to
the pay scale of Rs. 330-560 as per recommendation of the Third Pay D
Commission and by the impugned order the pay scale recommended for
them was implemented.

Section 31 of the Act says:

"31 - A person who has attained the age of eighteen years E
shall be entitled on payment of the prescribed fee to have
his name entered in ·the first register if he resides, or
carries on the business or profession of pharmacy, in the
State and if he-
F
(a) holds a degree or diploma in pharmacy or phar-
maceutical chemistry or a chemist and druggist diploma
of an Indian University or a State Government, as the case
may be, or a prescribed qualfication granted by an
authority outside India, or
G
(b) holds a degree of an Indian University other than
a degree in pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemic;try. and
has been engaged in the compounding of drugs in a
hospital or dispensary or other place in which drugs are
regularly dispensed on prescriptions of medical prac- H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A titioners for a total period of not less than three years, or.

(c) has passed an examination recognised as adequate
by the State Government for compounders or despensers,
or

B (d) has been engaged in the compounding of drugs in
a hospital or dispensary or other place in which drugs are
regularly dispensend on prescriptions of medical prac-
titioners for a total period of not less than five years prior
to the date notified under sub-Section (2) of section 30".
c 4. The Third Pay Commission recommended the two revised scales
of pay to the Pharmacists Grade-B, classifiying them into two categories,
according to their qualifications. In other words, the Pharmacists Grade-B,
who were getting the scale of Rs. 130- 240, were out in two categories with
reference to their qualification, and two scales of pay were recommended,
D which are as follows : -

Original Revised Qualification
. Scale Scale

Pharmacist 130-240 330-10-380-EB- For fully qualified
E Gr.B. 12-500-EB-15-560 Pharmacist i.e. those
possessing quali-
fication mentioned in
Section 31 and 32 of -+--
Pharmacy Act 1948
but excluding those
F covered by clause (d)
of Section 31 of the
Pharmacy Act.

Pharmacist 130-240 330-8-370-10- For unqualified
Gr. B. 400-EB-10-480. Pharmacists i.e. those
G covered by clause (d)
of Section 31 of
Pharmacist Act or
possessing regis-
terable qualifications
under that clause.
H
SHYAM BABU v. U.0.1. [N.P. SINGH,J.) 705

The said recommendation was given effect from 1..1.1973. There is no A
dispute that the petitioners are unqualified Pharmacists as such covered by
clause (d) of Section 31 of the Act. In terms of the recommendation, which
was given effect to with effect from 1.1.1973, the petitioners were entitled
to the scale of Rs. 330-480. But they were getting the pay scale. of Rs.
330-560, which was meant for qualified Pharmacists i.e. those possessing B
qualifications mentioned in Sections 31 and 32 of the Act, excluding those
coverd by clause (d) of Section 31 of the Act.

5. According to the petitioners, although they possess the qualifica-
tion prescribed under clause (d) of Section 31, but as throughout they had
been treated at par with the Pharmacists possessing qualifications C
prescribed in clauses (a) to ( c) Sections 31 and 32 of the Act and they were
getting the same scale of pay since 1973, the order dated 15.6.1984 reducing
their scale of pay from Rs. 330-560 to Rs. 330-480 retrospectively, was
arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.
D
6. During the hearing of the writ petitions, it was an admitted position
that the petitioners do not hold the qualifications mentioned in clauses (a),
(b) and (c) of Section 31 of the Act and they are only covered by clause
(d) of Section 31. The Third Pay Commission placed Pharmacists grade-B
into two categories, for prescribing the scales of pay - (i) Pharmacist~, fully
qualified, who possessed the qualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) E
of Section 31, (ii) Pharmacists, who are covered by clause ( d) of Section
31 of the Act. That recommendation was given effect to w.e.f. 1.1.1973. As
&uch in normal course, the petitioners were entitled to the scale of Rs.
330-480 and not the scale of Rs. 330-560. But they were getting the scale
of Rs. 330- 560 since 1973. Once it is established that the petitioners do F
not belong to the class of Pharmacists, who possessed the qualifications
mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of Section 31 for whom the separate scale
of pay was recommended by the Third Pay Commission, which was ac-
cepted by the Government and implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1973, we fail to
understand as to how the petitioners can claim the same scale when they
do not belong to same class of category. G

7. The basis of the claim of the petitioners, is that prior to 1.1.1973
there was only one scale of Rs. 130-240 for Pharmacists who possessed the
qualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of Section 31 as well as those
who were covered by clause (d) of Section 31 i.e. who did not possess the H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.
l
A qualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (c). It is always open to the State
Government to put its employees in the same service in different categories
for the purpose of the scale of pay, according to the qualifications pos-
sessed by them. When Section 31 itself conceives of different types of
Pharmacists with reference to their academic qualifications and ex-
perience, then no fault can be found either with the Third Pay Commission
B
or the respondents in putting the Pharmacists grade-B in two categories
with reference to their qualifications and experience and prescribing two
scales of pay. In most of the services, the scale of pay is linked with the
academic performance, experience and it cannot be held that for one
service, there should be only one scale of pay, ignoring the persons, who
C possess the higher qualifications.

8. It was then urged on behalf of the pefaioners that on principle of
'equal pay for equal work', they were entitled to pay scale of Rs. 330-560.
It was pointed out that they have been performing the same nature of work, ·
D which was being performed by 0ther Pharmacists Grade-B, who have been
given the scale of Rs. 330-560. The nature of work may be more or less
same, but scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or
experience which justifies classification. The principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner.
Classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the
E work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the
classification made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in different
groups, excludes applicability of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
to them. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has been exaniined in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, [1993] 1 S.C.C. 539, by this +
F Court. Before any direction is issued by the Court the claimants have to
establish that there was no reasonable basis to treat them separately in
matters of payment of wages or salary. Then only it can be held that there
has been a discrimination, within the meaning of Article 14 of the Con-
stitutioP.

G 9. Jn the facts of present case, there is no scope for applying the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work', when the petitioners belong to a
separate category of Pharamacists, with reference to the qualifications
,prescribed under the Act. According to us, there is no element of arbitrari-
ness in the decision of the reapondents to implement two scales of pay for
H two categories of Pharmacists Grade-B. It does not violate any of the
SHYAM BABU v. U..O.L [N.P. SINGH, J.) 707

provisions of the Constitution, calling for interference by this Court. A
10. Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to
the pay scale of Rs. 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third
Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they
became entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 330-560, but as they have received
the scale of Rs. 330-560 since 1973, due to no fault of theirs, and that scale B
is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from 1.1.1973, it shall only be
just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been
paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be taken to
recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners, due to the
fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no way responsible for the C
same.

The petitions are allowed in part. There will be no order a5 to costs.

N.P.V. Petitions disposed of.