http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: DR. C. GIRIJAMBAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/02/1981

BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1537            1981 SCR  (2) 782  1981 SCC  (2) 155        1981 SCALE  (1)281  CITATOR INFO :  APR        1989 SC1247  (9)

ACT:      Constitution of India 1950, Article 16-Medical Officers of  Dispensaries-   Three  categories-G.C.I.M.,  L.I.M.  and D.A.M. degree holders-Different pay scale for each category- Whether valid.      Professional services-Principle  of equal pay for equal work-Whether can be invoked.

HEADNOTE:      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 Registration could be given the higher scale of pay.      Under the  Andhra  Ayurvedic  and  Homeopathic  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.I.M.) and  holders  of Licentiate in  Indigenous Medicine (L.I.M.) were entitled to class ‘A’  Registration Certificate.  Her application to the Andhra Board  of Ayurveda  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 possessing a  diploma similar  to the G.C.I.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.      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  Officers. 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.      Her representation to the Government for fixing her pay

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

in the  scale of  Rs. 530-1050 having not been answered, she moved the  Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which held that she  was not  entitled to a higher scale as she did not possess  the   requisite  qualifications  mentioned  in  the relevant government order.      Before this  Court it  was contended  on behalf  of the appellant that:  (1) 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 783 for  Medical  Officers  holding  G.C.I.M.  because  she  was entitled to class ‘A’ Registration 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 revision in  the scale  of Rs. 530-1050 alongwith holders of L.I.M.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD :  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  scale available to  the holder of G.C.I.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 invoked in the area of professional services. [786 F]      In the  instant case by reason of the fact that Medical Officers holding the qualifications of G.C.I.M. or L.I.M. or D.A.M. were  placed incharge of Zilla Parishad 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 category of Medical Officers no fault could be found with such prescription. [786 H-787 A]      3. The  similarity or  equality conferred on holders of G.C.I.M.,  L.I.M.   and  D.A.M.  was  for  the  purposes  of registration as  practitioners of  modern medicine 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 were different, highest pay scale being available to holders of G.C.I.M.  the next  lower being  available to  holders of L.I.M. and  the lowest  to medical  practitioners 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  Officers  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 was  revised to 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 Medical Officers holding L.I.M. and the other for Medical Officers other than L.I.M. Since  the appellant  was not  a holder of L.I.M. but fell in  the other  category she  was properly  fixed in the lower revised pay scale of Rs. 430-800. [787 G-788 A]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil 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.      M. K. Ramamurthi, Miss R. Vaigai and J. Rama Murthi for the Appellant. 784      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 G.O.M.  No. 574 P.R. dated October 20, 1975 with effect 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 and nine months with one more year of House Surgeoncy.  Besides  Ayurvedic  Medicine  this  course consisted of  Modern Medicine  also. This  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 Medicine)  and L.I.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 Homeopathic Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1956 (hereinafter called ‘the Registration Act’).      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,  Nellore 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  the pay  scale of  Rs. 125-220,  though  the  post 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 House Surgeoncy and (ii) Rs. 180-320 for  candidates holding the qualification of L.I.M.] The  appellant,   therefore,  made  representations  to  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  Board  of Ayurveda on  payment of  requisite fees  to register here 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 785 consideration of  the provisions of the Registration Act the High Court  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 Zilla  Parishad that  the appellant be given the  higher pay-scale of Rs. 180-320. The High Court’s directions were  carried out and the appellant was given all the benefits  of  the  higher  scale  of  Rs.  180-320  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

retrospective effect from the date of her appointment.      It appears  that the  pay scales of Medical Officers in Zilla Parishad  and Panchayat  Samitis were  revised  twice, once with  effect from  March 19,  1969 under G.O.M. No. 708 dated December  11, 1970  and second  time with  effect from November 1, 1974 under G.O.M. No. 574 P.R. dated October 20, 1975. As  per G.O.M.  No. 708 the then existing scale 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.I.M.) was revised to Rs. 200-400. Under G.O.M. No. 574 the then existing scale of Rs. 250-500 was again 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 with effect from November 1, 1974.  She represented  to the Government that she should be given  the scale  of Rs.  530-1050 as  was done for M.Os. holding either  G.C.I.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 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 appointment 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  she did  not possess  the requisite qualifications mentioned in the 786 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 contentions which were urged before the Tribunal. In the first place  counsel pointed  out that  in the  earlier writ proceedings the  High Court  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 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  support  of  this  contention counsel sought  to invoke  the principle  of equal  pay  for equal work  as, according  to him,  Medical Officers holding 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  any  lower qualification than a Medical Officer holding L.I.M. inasmuch 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, therefore, when  the  second  revision  was  effected  under G.O.M. No.  574 the  appellant should have been fixed in the revised scale  of Rs.  530-1050 alongwith  holders of L.I.M.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

and there  was no  justification  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.      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  these  are  to  be compensated. Dressing of any injury 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 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 inapplicable. In  the   instant  case   Medical   Officers   holding   the qualification of G.C.I.M., or the qualification of L.I.M. or the  qualification   of  D.A.M.,   though   in   charge   of dispensaries run  by Zilla  Parishads, cannot, therefore, be treated on par with each other and if the State 787 Government or the Zilla Parishads prescribe different scales of pay  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.I.M. and  as such the appellant alongwith the holders of G.C.I.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.I.M. all throughout her service. However, it needs to be clarified that  the  similarity  or  equality  conferred  on holders of  G.C.I.M., L.I.M.  and D.A.M. was for the purpose of their  registration as  practitioner of  modern  medicine under the  Registration Act, 1956, all being put under Class ‘A’ Registration  and not  in the matter of proficiency. The High Court  in its order had 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.I.M. and was entitled  to Class  ‘A’ Registration  Certificate.  That these three  categories were  not equated  in the  matter of proficiency will  be amply  borne out by the fact that right from the  beginning the  pay  scales  prescribed  for  these categories were different, highest pay scale being available to holders  of G.C.I.M.  the next  lower being  available to holders of  L.I.M. and  the lowest  to Medical Practitioners other  than  G.C.I.M.  and  L.I.M.  The  contention  of  the appellant, therefore,  that because her Diploma was regarded as  similar  or  equivalent  to  G.C.I.M.  for  registration purposes  she  should  be  given  the  pay  scale  that  was available to  the holder  of G.C.I.M.  cannot  obviously  be accepted and  in our  view, it  was rightly  rejected by the Tribunal.      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 the appellant  had been  fixed initially in the pay scale of Rs. 180-320-the  pay scale  also meant  for Medical Officers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

holding L.I.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.I.M. and the other for Medical Officers  other than  L.I.M. as has been done in the instant case  and since  the appellant  was not  a holder of L.I.M. but fell in the other 788 category she  was, in  our view, properly fixed in the lower revised pay scale of Rs. 430-800.      As  no   other  contention  was  urged  the  appeal  is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. N.V.K.                                    Appeal dismissed. 789