UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus MANU DEV ARYA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 717 · Decided: 27-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MANUDEVARYA 
APRIL 27, 2004 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 39(d)-Doctrine of equt1l 
pay for equal work-Non-practicing allowance not enhanced for. the posts C 
below certain pay scale under a policy decision-Claim for enhancement 
commensurate with the higher pay-scale-Non-enhancement held to be 
discriminatory by High Court-On appeal, held: Fixation of allowance is a 
matter of policy-Employees cannot claim the same as a matter of right-If 
higher amount of allowance is paid to one branch of employees without D 
causing any financial loss to other branch of employees, it would not amount 
to unequal treatment-A policy decision of State unless affects somebody's 
legal rights cannot be questioned-Administrative Law-Policy Decision. 
Respondent, a Research Assi~tant with Central Council for Research 
in Homeopathy was getting Non-practicing Allowance in pre-revised scale E 
(revised scale 1400-2300). Doctors and Physicians were also getting the 
allowance. Appellant laid down a policy decision whereby Non-practicing 
Allowance of the doctors and physicians in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3500 
was enhanced. It also inter alia provided that the allowance was not admissible 
to the holders of the posts in pay scale lower than Rs. 2000-3500. However, it 
protected those already in receipt of the allowance. Respondent's claim for F 
enhanced rate of the allowance was not allowed. 
Writ Petition claiming enhanced rate of allowance was allowed by Single 
Judge of High Court holding that doctors/physicians and the Research 
Officers could not be treated differently and State having not enhanced Non- G 
Practicing Allowance of the respondent made hostile discrimination without 
there being any reasonable ground for making a differential treatment. 
Division Bench summarily dismissed the appeal. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that doctrine of equal pay 
717 
H 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A for equal work could not have been invoked and High Court interfered with 
the policy decision of Central Government in fixing the allowance for different 
categories of employees. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work could not be invoked 
in a case of this nature. The doctors and physicians, who were appointed on 
the Allopathic side and were drawing a higher.scale of pay, could be treated 
differently. Only because at one point of time the Research Assistants and 
the Doctors had been given the benefit ofNon-Practicin·g Allowance, the same 
C by itself would not mean that a discrimination has been meted out If without 
causing any financial loss to the incumbents of the other branch of employees 
and having regard to the fact that they form a class by themselves, a higher 
amount of Non-Practicing Allowance is granted to the Doctors and Physicians, 
tl~e same by itself would not lead to an unequal treatment. 
D 
(721-G-H; 722-A-B) 
2. The State in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the proviso 
appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to fix the 
conditions of service of its employees. In absence of any rule framed in this 
belfalf, such conditions of service can be fixed by reason of an executive 
instruction. No Non-Practicing Allowance was to be paid to the holder of posts 
E in the scale of pay lower than Rs. 2000-3500. However, in the case of the 
existing incumbents who had been receiving Non-Practicing Allowance, the 
same was directed to be continued. (721-E-F) 
3. A policy decision of the State unless affects somebody's legal right, 
cannot be questioned. The question is as to whether certain allowances would 
F be paid to a section of employees or not and that too at what rate, is basically 
a question of policy. The concerned employees cannot claim Non-Practicing 
Allowance as a matter of right [722-C) 
G 
Joint Action Cauncil of Service Doctors' Organisations and Ors. v. 
Union of India and Anr., [1996] 7 SCC 256, relied on. 
4. Although a discrimination can be inferred in relation to certain types 
of allowances but Non-Practicing Allowance would stand on a somewhat 
different footing. (722-F-G] 
Dr. Ms. O.Z Hussain v. Union of India, (1990] Supp. SCC 688, referred 
•
I-
U.0.1. v. M.D. ARYA [SINHA, J.] 
719 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6519of1999. 
A 
From the Judgment and Or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.