LexDR. C. GIRIJAMBAL versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 782 DR. C. GIRIJAMBAL v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH February 11, 1981 [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 sen1ices-Pri11ciple of equal pay for equal work-Whether clin 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 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 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. 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. 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) 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 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~ 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.