IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 15276 of 2000(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. K.K.MANOHARAN, MASSEUR, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THRIPUNITHURA. 2. T.S.KRISHNANKUTTY, MASSEUR, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA PANCHAKARMA HOSPITAL , KALARCODE P.O., ALAPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADVS. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.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. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.RAMANI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.24869/2000 IN OP. 15276/2000 DISMISSED 23.05.2009 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN ANIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 19.3.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(P) 3000/98/FIN DT. 25.11.98. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP. NO.27917/99. P5:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.98410/PRI-1/99/FIN. DT. 14.12.1999. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.15276 of 2000-R - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Masseurs in the Ayurveda College Hospitals. The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 by which the representations submitted by the petitioners for equalisation of pay with that of the scale granted to Ayurveda Nurses and Pharmacists was rejected by the Government. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a reading of Ext.P5 will show that the pay revision committee had recommended to upgrade the scale of pay of Masseurs with that of the scale of pay of Ayurveda Nurses and Pharmacists. The proceedings Ext.P5 will show that Masseurs were in the scale of pay of Rs.950-1650 and Ayurveda Nurses/Pharmacists were in the scale of pay of Rs.1050-1660. The pay revision committee recommended to upgrade the scale of pay of Masseurs to Rs.1050-1660 and accordingly corresponding revised scale of Rs.3350- 5275 was sanctioned. It is therefore contended that when the Cabinet Sub op 15276/2000 2 Committee recommended to upgrade the scale of Ayurveda Nurses/Pharmacists to Rs.3590-5400, there should have been a similar upgradation of scale of pay of Masseurs to that of the said category. 4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 that there was no parity existing in the pre-revised scale of pay between Ayurveda Masseurs with Ayurveda Nurse/Pharmacist in the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine and after the recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee, the Government accepted the same and a revised scale of Rs.3350-5275 was granted. It is further pointed out that though the duration of the course for Ayurveda Masseurs, Nurses and Pharmacists are the same, the curriculum, mode of examination, nature of work, duties and responsibilities are entirely different. The Pay Revision Committee has not recommended parity in the scale of pay between Ayurveda Masseurs, Nurses and Pharmacists. The Cabinet Sub Committee appointed by the Government to study the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee had recommended to upgrade the pay of certain posts taking into account of their educational qualification and the nature of duties, the Government in turn upgraded the pay scale of certain posts including Ayurveda Nurses/Pharmacists to Rs.3590-5400. It is accordingly contended that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not op 15276/2000 3 applicable in this case, in the light of the fact that considering the nature of work, there is absolutely no similarity between these posts. 5. It is true that in Ext.P5 detailed reasons are not stated. But still, it is a well settled that the principle of equal pay for equal work will apply only if all the conditions are similar in nature. Therefore, it cannot be said that the view taken in Ext.P5 is incorrect warranting interference by this court at this stage. Therefore, the prayer to quash Ext.P5 is refused. Presently, a subsequent pay revision has been effected in the year 2006. If the petitioners have got any further grievance, they will be entitled to agitate the same before the Pay Revision Committee as and when such a Committee is appointed by the Government. With liberty to do so, the original petition is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ op 15276/2000 4 T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.15276 of 2000-R - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 23rd day of May, 2009.