SHYAM BABU VERMA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 700 · Decided: 08-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH, N. VENKATACHALA
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHY AM 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 
G Act, 1948, their salary was being fixed in the scale of Rs. 330-480 instead 
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] 
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 
F 
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 b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.