IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2247 of 2009() {IN OP.15276/2000 OF THIS COURT} APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION 1. K.K.MANOHARAN, MASSEUR, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THRIPUNITHURA. 2. T.S.KRISHNANKUTTY, MASSUER, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA PANCHAKARMA HOSPITAL, KALARCODE P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PRINCIPAL, AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.2247 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. This appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition. They are working as Masseurs in the Indian Systems of Medicine (Ayurveda). They approached this court aggrieved by Ext.P5 communication from the Government. In Ext.P5, the Government dealt with the representations filed in the matter of parity of pay scale with that of Ayurveda Nurses/Pharmacist Grade II and declined the request for parity. 2. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition without prejudice to the liberty to the petitioners to approach the Pay Revision Commission and hence this appeal. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the 1998 Pay Revision Commission W.A.No.2247 of 2009 :: 2 :: had recommended the upgradation of the scale of pay to Rs.1050-1660, which was the existing scale of pay of Nurses/Pharmacists in Ayurveda. The scale of pay applicable to Masseurs was Rs.950-1650. However, when the revision of pay was effected, the scale of pay of Nurses was revised from Rs.1050-1660 to Rs.3590-5400, whereas that of the Masseurs was revised from Rs.950-1650 to Rs.1050-1660 and further revised to Rs.3350-5275. In the case of Nurses, however, the scale of pay was revised from the then existing Rs.1050-1660 to Rs.3590-5400. While the writ petition was pending, the 2006 pay revision has come into effect and the scales have undergone corresponding change with effect from 1.7.2004. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that steps are afoot for the next pay revision. The grievance of the appellants is that when the scale of pay of Masseurs was revised from Rs.950-1650 to Rs.1050-1660 and to W.A.No.2247 of 2009 :: 3 :: Rs.3350-5275, but while implementing the 1998 pay revision, though there was a recommendation to upgrade the pay of Masseurs to that of Nurses/Pharmacists, no steps were taken to upgrade the pay of Master to that of Nurses/Pharmacists, whose pay had been fixed at Rs.3590- 5400. 5. As rightly pointed by the learned Government Pleader, the question of parity of pay scale arises only when there is complete and whole identity of the duties and responsibilities of the two posts as held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Bihar Veterinary Association {2008(11) SCC 60}. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, pointed out, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.Thiruvalluvan v. Union of India {1995 Supp.(3) SCC 436} and Secretary, Finance Department v. W.B.Registration Service Assn. {1993 Supp. (1) SCC 153}, W.A.No.2247 of 2009 :: 4 :: that once the recommendation is made by the Pay Revision Committee, unless there are reasons in favour of the Government, there cannot be any deviation. The evaluation of the job is also required, while considering the pay revision. But, it has to be seen that while accepting the 1998 pay revision, the Government had only granted upgradation and not equalisation of pay. The Government had also taken note of the fact that in the pay revision report there was no recommendation for a parity in pay scales; the recommendation was only for upgradation of pay. 7. Be that as it may, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, since steps are now being taken for a fresh pay revision, it is for the appellants to bring all their grievances to the notice of the pay revision commission, since the said commission is possessed with the wherewithals to assess the situation and make an W.A.No.2247 of 2009 :: 5 :: appropriate recommendation. Needless to say that the implementation of the 2006 pay revision will not stand in the way of the new pay revision commission considering the grievance of the appellants, as above. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE SK/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.