on of application of princi ple of Equal Pay for Equal Work  it has to be borne in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned
If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved efficiency in the administration the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is rounded on unreal and unreasonable basis it would be viola tive of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
Equality must be among the equals unequals cannot claim equality
962G H 963A B  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil No 4611 of 1983
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Gobinda Mukhoty and KN Rai for the Petitioner A Mariarputham for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
By means of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner has raised a grievance that the Respondent Authorities have practised discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in refusing to pay him salary in the scale of pay prescribed for similarly placed employees
He has invoked the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work as enshrined under Article 39d of the Constitution
In order to appreciate petitioner s grievance it is necessary to refer to relevant facts giving rise to this petition
The petitioner was initially appointed in 1967 to the post of Teacher Co ordinator in the pay scale of Rs2 10 425 in the Research Project Rehabilitation Unit in Audiology and Speech Pathology a project funded by the Indian Council of Medical Research under PL 480 research scheme with the special assistance of the Social Rehabilita tion Services formerly Vocational Rehabilitation Adminis tration
The aforesaid unit was taken over by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences on 17 1970 alongwith the staff attached to the said unit
The petitioner s services stood transferred to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences hereinafter referred to as the Institute and the petitioner continued to hold the post of Teacher Coordinator in the Institute
On the recommendation 961 of the Head of the Department of Rehabilitation Unit the petitioner s post was redesignated as Hearing Therapist  with effect from 38
1972 but he continued to draw the salary in the same scale of pay of Rs210425
In pursuance to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission as adopt ed by the Institute the pay scale of Hearing Therapist was revised to Rs425 700 with effect from 111973
Since then the petitioner has continued to draw salary in the pay scale of Rs425 700
The petitioner made several representations to the respondentauthorities to revise his pay scale and to place him in the pay scale prescribed for the Speech Pa thologist and Audiologist in the pay scale of Rs650 1200
Since no relief was granted to him he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by means of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
The petitioner s main grievance is that Hearing Thera pist  perform the same duties and functions as Senior Speech Pathologist  Senior Physiotherapist  Senior Occupational Therapist  Audiologist  and Speech Patholo gist  yet the respondents have practised discrimination in paying salary to the petitioner in a lower scale of pay
The petitioner has asserted that the qualification prescribed for the aforesaid posts are almost similar and they are working in the same institution under the same employer but the respondent authorities have practised discrimination in refusing to accept the petitioner s claim for equal pay
The petitioner has further raised a grievance that the Third Pay Commission ignored the claim of Hearing Therapist  although it has granted higher scale of pay for similar posts of Speech Therapist  Senior Speech Pathologist  and Audiol ogist 
He has asserted that Speech Therapists performing similar kind of duties as performed by the petitioner have been granted higher pay scale in other organisations like Safdarjang Hospital PGI Chandigarh Medical College Rohtak and Ali Yaver Jung National Institute for the Hearing Handicapped Hyderabad
The petitioner contends that the respondents have failed to implement the Directive Princi ples of Equal Pay for Equal Work  as contained in Article 39d of the Constitution in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
He has claimed relief for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents which include All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Union of India for fixing the petitioner s pay in the scale of Rs400 950 with effect from 111970 and thereafter in the scale of Rs650 1200 with effect from 111973
In defence the re spondents assert that the petitioner cannot compare himself with Senior Speech Therapist Senior Physiotherapist Senior Occupational Therapist Audiologist or Speech Therapist as qualifications duties and functions of those posts 962 are altogether different and distinct from those prescribed for Hearing Therapist
There is no equality between the petitioner and persons holding the aforesaid posts
The Institute has created different posts with different pay scales having regard to the qualifications duties func tions and responsibilities of the posts
The petitioner is not entitled to equate himself with the incumbents holding the posts of Senior Speech Therapist Senior Physiothera pist Senior Occupational Therapist Audiologist and Speech Therapist
The petitioner s plea of discrimination is em phatically denied
The doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work is not ex pressly declared a fundamental fight under the Constitution
But Article 39d read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Con stitution declares the constitutional goal enjoining the State not to deny any person equality before law in matters relating to employment including the scales of pay
Article 39d read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution enjoins the State that where all things are equal and person holding indentical posts performing indentical and similar duties under the same employer should not be treated differ ently in the matter of their pay
The doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work  is not abstract one it is open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay for different posts having regard to educational qualifications duties and responsibilities of the post
The principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work  is applicable when employees holding the same rank perform similar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibilities are treated differently
The application of doctrine would arise where employees are equal in every respect but they are denied equality in matters relating to the scale of pay
The principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work has been enforced by this Court in Randhir Singh vs Union of India  Ors   Dhirendra Chamoli  Anr
vs State ofU P  VJ Thomas  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
1985 Supp SCC 7 P Savita vs Union of India  Ors 1985 Supp SCR 101 Bhagwan Dass vs State of Haryana 1987 4 SCC 634 and Jai Pal  Ors
vs State of Haryana  Ors
 1988 3 SCC 354
In all these cases this Court granted relief on the application of the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work 
While considering the question of application of prin ciple of Equal Pay for Equal Work  it has to be borne in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned
If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved efficiency in the administration the State would be justified in prescribing 963 different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is rounded on unreal and unreasonable basis it would be viola tive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
Equality must be among the equals Unequals cannot claim equality
In the writ petition the petitioner claimed parity with the pay scale prescribed for Senior  Speech Therapist Senior physiotherapist Senior Occupational Therapist Audiologist and Speech Pathologist but during the course of hearing Sri Gobind Mukhoty learned counsel for the peti tioner confined the petitioner s case for parity with Aud iologist  only
He urged that the educational qualifica tions duties and functions of Hearing Therapist  and Audiologist  are similar if not the same and there is no reasonable justification for prescribing lower pay scale of pay to Hearing Therapist
A Hearing Therapist is required to treat the deaf and other patients suffering from hearing defects
His function is to help in rehabilitation of those whose hearing capacity is impaired
The Hearing Therapist s main function is to train the patient to facilitate maximum expressive and receptive communication skill
An Audiolo gist  pertains to the science of hearing
His work is de signed to coordinate the separate professional skills which contribute to study treatment and rehabilitation of persons with impaired hearing
A person holding the post of Audiolo gist is a specialist in the non medical evaluation habili tation and rehabilitation of those who suffer from language and speech disorders
Generally Hearing Therapist and Audiologist both perform duties and functions is helping rehabilitation of patients suffering from hearing disorders their duties and functions appear to be similar but the petitioner has not placed material before the Court to demonstrate that the duties and functions performed by Hearing Therapist is same or similar as that performed by an Audiologist
The petitioner has placed reliance on a certif icate issued by the Head of Department of Otorhinolaryngolgy which enumerates duties functions which the petitioner has been performing while working as Hearing Therapist
Accord ing to this certificate the petitioner has been carrying out the following functions 1
Diagnosis of the impairment of hearing cases
Detailed diagnosis
Audiological evaluation ie heating aid evaluation hearing and prescription and autitory training
964 3
Parent counselling and guidance
Referring to different experts for their opinion such as Physiotherapist Occupational Therapist Clinical Psy chologist Ear Mould Technician Paediatrician Paediatric Neurologist and Opthalmologist Audiometry Technical and to ENT Specialist
Speech and language therapy
Integration of hearing handicapped with normal persons
Integration of hearing loss children with normal hearing children
Guidance to the teachers of normal schools where there is any hard of heating case is studying
Writing of papers and books on the basis of personal experience and research
Speech therapy to normal hearing persons as and when referred to them
Referring the hearing handicapped children to special schools for the deaf and when a child is unable to study in a normal school
Educational rehabilitation of any age group of hear ing loss cases   The petitioner has however failed to place material before the Court showing the corresponding duties and functions of an Audiologist in the Institute
In the absence of duties and functions of an Audiologist it is not possible for the Court to record findings that the duties and functions performed by Hearing Therapist is similar to those performed by an Audiologist more so when the respondents have denied the petitioner s claim in the counter affidavit
The peti tioner s claim that he performs the same duties and func tions as those performed by an Audiologist under the same employer cannot therefore be accepted
Even assuming that the petitioner performs similar duties and functions as those performed by an Audiologist it is not sufficient to 965 uphold his claim for equal pay
As already observed in judging the equality of work for the purposes of equal pay regard must be had not only to the duties and functions but also to the educational qualifications qualitative differ ence and the measures of responsibility prescribed for the respective posts
Even if the duties and functions are of similar nature but if the educational qualifications pre scribed for the two posts are different and there is differ ence in measure of responsibilities the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work  would not apply
Under the relevant Rules framed by the Institute qualifications for the two class of posts namely Audiologist and Hearing Therapist  are as under Audiologist Qualifications Hearing Therapist Qualifications Essential Essential 1
A graduate in Science 1
A graduate in Science or Arts or Medicines from Arts of a recognised Univer a recognised University
sity in India or abroad
Master s degree in Audiology 2
Trained teacher for the or Otolaryngology from a deaf such as Certified recognised Institution Teacher for Deaf University CTD  Dip 3
Three years teaching 3
Teaching experience at a research experience in recognised school for the deaf the field of Audiology
in India for not less than three years
Desirable 1
PhD in Audiology from a recognised University
Practical experience of working in a speech and Hearing Rehabilitation Centre
Journalistic or literary activity in relation to Audiology
966 A perusal of the above chart would show that different educational qualifications are prescribed for the two posts
For an Audiologist a Master s Degree in Otolaryngology or Audiology is an essential qualification but no such Master s Degree is prescribed for Hearing Therapist instead a diploma as Certified Teacher for Deaf is the essential qualification for the said post
A comparison of the qualifications pre scribed for the two posts clearly indicates that higher qualification is prescribed for the post of Audiologist
There appears to be qualitative difference in the responsi bilities of the two posts as an Audiologist possesses higher qualification
It is therefore manifest that on the basis of educational qualifications two posts cannot be equated
Even if the functions and duties of two posts are similar it is open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay on the basis of difference in educational qualifications
Different treatment to persons belonging to the same class is a permissible classification on the basis of educational qualifications
There are several decisions of this Court where educa tional qualifications have been recognised as a valid basis for classification
In State of Mysore vs Narasingh Rao  this Court held that higher educational qualifications such as success in SSLC examination are relevant considerations for fixation of higher pay scale for tracers who had passed the SSLC examination and the classification of two grades of tracers in Mysore State one for matriculate tracers with higher pay scale and the other for non matriculate tracers with lower pay scale was held valid
It is pertinent to note that matriculate and non matriculate tracers both constituted the same service per forming the same duties and functions yet the Court held that higher pay scale prescribed for the matriculate tracers on the basis of higher educational qualification was not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
In Union of India vs Dr Mrs SB Kohli  classification made on the basis of educational qualifica tion for purposes of promotion was upheld by this Court on the ground that the classification made on the basis of such a requirement was not without reference to the objectives sought to be achieved and there could be no question of discrimination
In State of Jammu  Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khose  Ors  cadre of Assistant Engineers included of Degree holders and Diploma holders they consti tuted one class of service but for promotion to the post of Executive Engineers only those Assistant Engineers were eligible for promotion who possessed Bachelor s Degree in Engineering and the Diploma holders were eligible only if they had put in 7 years minimum service no such restriction was prescribed for Degree holders
The 967 Diploma holder Assistant Engineers challenged the validity of the rule on the ground that it denied them equal opportu nity of promotion in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
On a detailed consideration a Constitution Bench of this Court upheld the classification on the ground of difference in educational qualification
The Court held that classification rounded on the basis of educational qualification had a reasonable nexus to achieve administra tive efficiency in Engineering Services
The Court approv ingly referred to the decisions of the Court in State of Mysore vs Narasing Rao   Ganga Ram vs Union of India  and Union of India vs Dr Mrs SB Kohli  The Court upheld the classifi cation and refused to grant any relief to Diploma holder Engineers
In Mohammad Shujat Ali  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
  another Constitution Bench of this Court upheld the classification of Supervisors into two classes graduates and non graduates for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers on the ground of educational qualification although both the class of supervisors constituted the same service
In Federation of All India Customs  Central Excise Stenographers Recog nised  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
  claim of Personal Assistants and Stenographers attached to the Head of Departments in the Customs and Central Excise Department of the Ministry of Finance for equal pay in parity with the Personal Assistants and Stenographers at tached to the Joint Secretaries and Officers above them in the Ministry of Finance was rejected by this Court on the ground of the functional requirement of the work done training and responsibility prescribed for the two posts
In State of UP  Ors
vs Sh
JP Chaurasia  Ors  the question arose whether it was permissible to have two different pay scales in the cadre of Bench Secre taries for persons performing the same duties and having the same responsibilities
In the light of the various decisions of this Court it was held that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application in every case of similar work
Articles 14 and 16 permit rea sonable classification rounded on rational basis it is therefore permissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection based on merit with due regard to experience and seniority
The Court held that in such a situation the principle of equal pay for equal work did not apply
We would like to emphasise that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked invariably in every kind of service particularly in the area of professional services
In Dr C Girijambal vs Government of Andhra Pradesh  it was contended 968 before the Court that medical officers holding the degree of Graduate from the College of Integrated Medicine GCIM and holders of Licentiate in Indigenous Medicine LIM performed the same functions and discharged the same duties in dispen saries and therefore on the principle of equal pay for equal work both class of persons were entitled to the same scale of pay
Medical officers holding the qualifications of GCIM or the qualification of LIM or the qualification of Diploma in Ayurvedic Midicine DAMO being in charge of dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads were not treated alike as the State Government had prescribed different scales of pay for
medical officers
On behalf of the aggrieved Doc tors it was contended that the functions and duties dis charged by the three class of doctors in the dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads were the same and their qualifica tions were also similar and yet the State Government prac tised discrimination in prescribing different scale of pay for them
This Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work could not be invoked or applied in the area of professional services like medical practioners
The Court observed as under Dealing with the first contention we would like to observe at the outset that the princi ple of equal work cannot be invoked or applied invariably in every kind of service and cer tainly it cannot be invoked in the area of professional service when these are to be compensated
Dressing of any injury or wound is done both by a doctor as well as a com pounder but surely it cannot be suggested that for doing this job a doctor cannot be compensated more than the compounder
Similar ly a case in Court of law is argued both by a senior and a junior lawyer but it is diffi cult to accept that in matter of remuneration both should be treated equally
It is thus clear that in the field of rendering profes sional services at any rate the principle of equal pay for equal work would be inapplica ble
In the instant case Medical officers holding the qualification of GCIM or the qualification of LIM or the qualification of DAM though in charge of dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads cannot therefore be treat ed on par with each other and if the State Government or the Zilla Parishads prescribe different scales of pay for each category of Medical officers no fault could be found with such prescription
 We fully agree with the above observations and accord ingly we hold that in the instant case since the Hearing Therapist and 969 Audiologist both render professional services and there is qualitative difference between the two on the basis of educational qualification the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked or applied
The Pay Commission considered the case of Hearing Therapists and it did not accept their claim for higher scale of pay
The Pay Commis sion was in a better position to judge the volume of work qualitative difference and reliability and responsibility required for the two posts
The Pay Commission made recom mendations for pay scales on the basis of value judgment which has an intelligible criteria on the basis of educa tional qualifications
The scant material placed before the Court by the petitioner is not sufficient to hold that the recommendations of Pay Commission are without any rational basis or that it permits discrimination
The petitioner s contention that Speech Therapists have been granted higher scale of pay in other Institutions namely Rohtak Medical College National Institute for Hearing Handicapped Hyderabad Safdarjang Hospital and PGI Chandigarh cannot be taken into consideration as the petitioner has failed to place any material showing the duties and functions performed by the Speech Therapist in the aforesaid Institutions or the qualifications prescribed for the same
Merely because Speech Therapists performing similar duties and functions in other Institutions are paid higher pay scale is no good ground to accept the petition er s claim for equal pay
There may be difference in educa tional qualifications quality and volume of work required to be performed by the Hearing Therapists in other Institu tions
In the absence of any material placed before the Court it is not possible to record findings that the peti tioner is denied equality before law
Moreover if the employer is not the same the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work  would not be applicable
We do not consider it necessary to discuss the matter further as the petitioner has not placed requisite material before the Court for the application of the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work 
In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any discrimination has been practised against him in the matter relating to pay therefore the question of application of the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work  does not arise and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief
The peti tion fails and is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs
NVK Petition dis missed


Summary:
One Hazari Singh died in November 1918 leaving behind his widow Smt
Mam Kaur and two daughters viz Smt
Pan Bai and Smt
Sohan Bai
The widow inherited the agriculture properties of her husband
The present appeals have arisen out of the two suits filed by the two daughters aforesaid claiming their half share in the property
The circumstances that led to the filing of the suits may be stated thus Smt
Mam Kaur the widow adopted Ranjit Singh grand son of Sanehi Singh and son of Lakhi Singh one of the collater als in 1944 and gifted all the lands to him inherited by her from her husband
Both the adoption as also the gift were made orally
Munshi Singh and his brothers reversions filed a suit challenging the validity both of the adoption of Ranjit Singh and the gift of the properties to him
By a decree of the Court both the adoption as also the gift in favour of Ranjit Singh were declared invalid and a declaration was granted in respect of the gift so far as it affected the reversionary rights
Thereupon on 4th June 1963 Smt
Mam Kaur sold away the entire property to Ranjit Singh  his brothers for Rs50000
Pan Bai daughter of deceased Hazari Singh and Munshi Singh and others revisioners filed suits claiming pre emption rights to purchase the properties in question
By a decree of the Court it was held that Pan Bai has a superior right to purchase the property
Accordingly first preference was granted in favour of Smt
Pan Bai to deposit the sale amount and seek pre emption failing which her suit was to be dismissed and a later date was given to Munshi Singh and others
Pan Bai did not deposit the amount with the result Munshi Singh  others deposited the amount and took possession of the properties and came to be substi tuted in the sale
1013 On the death of Mam Kaur in January 1965 Smt
Sohan Bai her 2nd daughter filed a suit for a decree for posses sion of half of the share on the plea that in view of the declaratory decree of 24747 on the death of Smt
Mam Kaur succession had to be traced to Hazari Singh ie her father
Pan Bai also filed a suit for the same relief
The Trial Court decreed the suit filed by Smt
Sohan Bai but dismissed the suit filed by Smt
Pan Bai on the ground that as Smt
Pan Bai had flied a suit claiming on the basis of pre emption earlier she was estopped from disputing the validity of the sale made by Smt
Mam Kaur
On appeal the Additional District Judge maintained the decree passed in the suit of Smt
Sohan Bai and reversed the trial Court s Judgment in the suit filed by Smt
Pan Bai and held that both the daughters were entitled to succeed to half share each in the property
Against the order of the Additional District Judge defendants in both the suits filed Regular Second Appeals in the High Court which were dismissed by the impugned judgment
Hence these appeals
Before this Court it was inter alia contended by the appellants that  in an earlier suit the adoption and the gift having been declared invalid the donee who was the adopted son of Ranjit Singh was not left with any rights in the properties on the other hand it was contended by the Respondents that no doubt adoption was declared invalid but so far as gift was concerned it was declared invalid in a suit for declaration by reversioners to the limited extent that this gift will not affect the rights of the reversion ers thereby meaning that so far as the life estate of Smt
Mam Kaur was concerned it was transferred by the gift deed but the right of the reversioners to succeed on the death of Smt
Mam Kaur was protected as it was declared that this gift will not affect the rights of the reversioners
Dismissing the appeals this Court HELD The gift will not affect the rights of the rever sioners on the death of Smt
Mam Kaur but it could not be disputed that so far as Smt
Mam Kaur during her life time is concerned as she had gifted away the property to Ranjit Singh and delivered possession she had no rights left with her
1020E F What residuary rights could be thought of were not the rights of the widow but the right of the reversioners to get as heirs of her husband on her death and on that basis it could not be said that she could be said to be possessed of any right in the property which she held 1014 as a limited owner on the date the Hindu Succession Act came into force
1020G H On the date on which Smt
Mam Kaur executed the sale deed in fact she had no title to the property nor she was in possession thereof
1022D E Jagannathan Pillai vs Kunjithapadam Pillai  Ors  Gopal Singh  Ors
vs Dile Ram dead by Lrs  Ors Kuldip Singh  Ors
vs Surain Singh and others referred to