MEWA RAM KANOJIA versus ALL INDIA INSTITUTE.OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 09-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
\ 
MEWA RAM KANOJIA 
v. 
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE.OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. 
MARCH 9, 1989 
[K.N. SINGH AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16 and 39(d)-'Equal 
pay for equal work'-Principle of-Cannot be invoked invariably in 
every kind of service-Particularly in area of professional services--
Open to State to classify employees on basis of qualifications, duties and 
responsibilities of posts. 
A 
B 
c 
)'-
'Hearing 
Therapist'-'Senior 
Speech 
Pathologist'-'Senior 
Physiotherapist'-'Senior Occupational Therapist'-'Audiologist'-
' Speech Pathologist' -Different scales of pay for the posts--Permissi-
bility of. 
The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1967 to the post 
of 'Teacher Co-ordinator' in the pay scale of Rs.210-425 in a Research 
Project funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research. As the unit 
~ 
where the petitioner was employed was taken over by the AU India 
Institute of Medical Sciences on 1. 7 .1970 his services stood transferred 
D 
to the said Institute and he continued to hold the post of Teacher Co-
E 
ordinator in the Institute. Though the post was redesignated as 'Hear-
ing Therapist' with effect from 3.8. 72, the same scale of pay, viz 
Rs.210-425 continued. 
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission 
the pay scale of 'Hearing Therapist was revised to Rs.425-700 with F 
effect from l.l.1973, and since then the petitioner continued to draw 
salary in the said scale. 
The petitioner made several representations to the respondent-
authorities to revise his pay scale and to place him in the pay scale 
prescribed for 'Speech Pathologist' and 'Audiologist' viz. Rs.650-1200. G 
Since no relief was granted the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction ofihis 
Court by means of a writ petition under Article 32. 
The petitioner contended in his writ petition, that as 'Hearing 
Therapist' he performs the same duties and functions as 'Senior Speech 
Pathologist', 'Senior Physio Therapist', 'Senior Audiologist' and 
H 
')57 
A 
B 
c 
D 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
'Speech Pathologist' that the qualifications prescribed for the aforesaid 
posts are almost similar and they are working in the same institution 
under the same employer, yet the respondent-authorities practised dis-
crimination in refusing to accept his claim for equal pay. It was further 
contended that the Third Pay Commission ignored the claim of 
'Hearing Therapist' although it had granted· higher scale of pay for 
similar posts of 'Speech Therapist', 'Senior Speech Pathologist', and 
'Audiologist', and that 'Speech Therapists' performing similar types of 
duty as are performed by the petitioner had been granted higher pay 
scale in other organisations like Safdarjuog Hospital, PGI Chandigarh, 
and Medical College, Rohtak. The respondents having thus failed to 
implement the Directive Principle of 'Equal pay for equal work' as 
contained in Art. 39( d) of the Constitution in violation of Arts. 14 and 
16, the petitioner claimed relief for the issuance of a writ of mandamus 
directing the respondents for fixing his pay in the scale of Rs.410-950 
with effect from 1.1.1970, and thereafter in the scale of Rs.650-1200 
with effect from 1.1.1973. 
The respondents contested the writ petition by asserting that the 
petitioner cannot compare himself with 'Senior Speech Therapist'. 
'Senior Physio Therapist', 'Senior Occupational Therapist', 'Audio-
logist' or 'Senior Therapist' as qualifications, duties and functions of 
these posts are altogether different and distinct from those prescribed 
for 'Hearing Therapist', that there is no equality between the petitioner 
E 
and the persons holding the aforesaid posts, that the Institute had 
created different posts with different pay scales having regard to the 
qualifications, duties, and responsibilities of the posts. The petitioner's 
plea of discrimination was emphatically denied. 
F 
G 
H 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court, 
HELD: The principle of 'Equal pay for equal work' cannot he 
invoked invariably in every kind of service, particularly, in the area of 
professional services. [967H] 
Dr. C. Girijambal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 11981] 2 
SCR 782 relied on. 
In the instant case, even assuming that the petitioner performs 
similar duties and functions as those performed by an 'AudiOlogist', it is 
not sufficient to uphold his claim for equal pay. In judging the equality 
of work for the purposes of equal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.