IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 20907 of 1997(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.BALACHANDRAN, THE SECRETARY, KERALA GOVERNMENT HOMOEO, PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION, “ASHADAM”' THIRUVANNUR NADA POST, CALICUT 673 029. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO. 20907/1997 ORDER ON CMP. NO.37547/1997 IN OP. NO.20907/1997 DISMISSED 18.01.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE COMPARATIVEABLE EXPLAINING THE NATURE OF JOB OF THE PHARMACISTS BELONGING TO THE 3 BRANCHES OF MEDICINE IN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PAY SCALE OF PHARMACISTS GRADE I AND II IN ALLOPATHY AYURVEDA AND HOMOEOPATHY UNDER THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERAFED FROM 1978 TO 1996. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE TABLE SHOWING THE COMPARATIVE RATIO OF GRADE PROMOTION. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION DT. 26.9.096. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.2549/97 DT. 11.2.97. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 26.6.97. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EA2/11633/99/D.H. DT. 19.6.2000 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HOMOEOPATHY. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP.22993/04 DT. 4.8.04. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.54385/PRC/C-D2/2004 / FIN DT. 17.12.04. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.20907 of 1997-L - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an association representing Homoeo Pharmacists. The members of the petitioner association are working under the Health Department in Homoeopathic hospitals and dispensaries all over the State. The petitioner has pointed out that the salary of Homoeo Pharmacists Grade I and II was equal to that of Pharmacists Grade I and II in Ayurveda till 1983. It appears that the scale of pay relating to the Ayurveda Pharmacists was revised based on a judgment of this court in O.P.No.10683/1983. There was a retrospective revision of pay from 1.7.1978. The apparent contention raised by the petitioner is that the duties discharged by Homoeo Pharmacists is equal or more as that of Pharmacists in Ayurveda and Allopathy and they are entitled to same wages as per the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Earlier, they had approached this court by filing O.P.No.2549/1997 which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment. This court directed the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, within the time limit provided in the judgment. Ext.P6 is the reply given to the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, is totally unsatisfactory, in that none of the OP 20907/1997 -2- points raised by them have been considered. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit for sustaining Ext.P6 communication. It is pointed out that there are no genuine circumstances to grant the same scale of pay. 3. Whether the posts are identical and carry the same duties, etc. are matters entirely for the competent authority to decide. If the grievance of the petitioner is real, then, that has to be rectified as per the procedure established and is in vogue from time to time. It is evident that subsequent to the passing of Ext.P6, pay revisions have been effected in between. Therefore, the issue has to be decided afresh in the light of the position now available also. 4. Therefore, the first respondent will consider the matter afresh in the light of the various circumstances available and with reference to the rules of recruitment, duties, etc. Considering the long lapse of time, I direct the first respondent to take an appropriate decision after hearing the association, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The first respondent will consider the matter on its merits with reference to the contentions raised by the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) OP 20907/1997 -3- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.20907 of 1997-L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 18th January, 2008.