Case: Dr. C. Girijambal Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2. The facts giving rise to the question may be stated: the appellant passed Diploma in Ayurvedic Medicine (DAM) from Kerala University in the year 1962, having studied this course for four years and nine months with one more year of House Surgeoncy. Besides Ayurvedic Medicine this course consisted of Modern Medicine also. This Diploma is also included in the Second Schedule tothe Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. According to the appellant the Government of Kerala had treated the holders of D.A.M. on par with holders of G.C.I.M. (Graduate of the College of Integrated Medicine) and L.I.M. (Licentiate in Indigenous Medicine) in regard to registration of medical practitioners in modern medicine, and all the three were also entitled to Class `A Registration Certificate under the Andhra Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1956 (hereinafter called `the Registration Act)3. In response to the advertisement published by the Zilla Parishad, Nellore the appellant applied for appointment to the post of Medical Officer, Local Fund Ayurvedic Dispensary, Duggarajapatnam, Nellore District and after an interview on being selected she joined the duties of the post on December 26, 1963. It appears that her salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs., though the post carried a higher salary according to the advertisement [in fact the advertisement mentioned two pay scales for the) Rs.5 for candidates holding the qualification of G.C.I.M. with House Surgeoncy and) Rs.0 for candidates holding the qualification of L.I.M.] The appellant, therefore, made representations to the concerned authorities saying that she was entitled to a higher pay scale but the authorities refused to give her the higher pay scale on the ground that only candidates with `A Class Registration could be given the scale of Rs.0 and the pay scale of Rs.0 was for candidates holding qualifications other than `A Class Registration. The appellant, therefore, applied to the Andhra Board of Ayurveda on payment of requisite fees to regist er here as `A Class Practitioner and on their refusal to do so she filed writ petition No. 3507 of 1969 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On a consideration of the provisions of the Registration Act the High Court held that the appellant be ing a person who possessed a Diploma similar to G.C.I.M. or L.I.M. was entitled to be registered in Class `A and the High Court further directed the Zilla Parishad that the appellant be given the highere of Rs.. The High Courts directions were carried out and the appellant was given all the benefits of the higherscale ofRs.0 with retrospective effect from the date of her appointment.It appears that the pay scales of Medical Officers in Zilla Pari shad and Panchayat Samitis were revised twice, once with effect from March 19, 1969 under G.O.M. No. 708 dated December 11, 1970 and second time with effect from November 1, 1974 under G.O.M. No. 574 P.R. dated October 20, 1975. As per G.O.M. No. 708 the then existingscale ofRs.5 (for M.Os. holding G.C.I.M.) was revised toRs.250500 and the then existingscale ofRs.0 (for M.Os. holding L.I.M.) was revised toRs.. Under G.O.M. No. 574 the then existingscale ofRs.0 was again revised toRs.0 and the existingscale ofRs.200 to 400 was again revised by splitting the revision into two categories530 to 1050 for M.Os. holding L.I.M. and0 for other Medical Officers. Under the first revision the appellant was given thescale ofRs.0 and when the second revision was undertaken she was fixed in the revised payscale ofRs.0 with effect from November 1, 1974. She represented to the Government that she should be given thescale ofRs.0 as was done for M.Os. holding either G.C.I.M. or L.I.M. but she did not receive any reply from the Government whereupon the appellant filed a Representation Petition No. 286 of 1977 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking the relief of revised pay scales contending that since in the earlier writ petition No. 3507 of 1969 the High Court had accepted that her qualifications were similar or equivalent to holders of G.C.I.M. which entitled her to Class `A Registration, she was entitled to thescale ofpay meant for Medical Officers holding G.C.I.M. from the date of her appointment and the benefits of all the revisions in that scale. Alternatively she contended that in any event at the time of the second revision she should have been treated on par with holders of L.I.M. and not lower and should have been fixed in thescale ofRs.0 and notRs.. The Tribunal rejected the Representation Petition holding that th e appellant was not entitled to higher scale as she did not possess the requisite qualifications mentioned in the G.O.M. 574 dated October 20, 1975, and hence the appeal to this Court.

Court's reasoning:
4. Dealing with the first contention we would like to observe at the outset that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked or applied invariably in every kin d of service and certainly it cannot be invoked in the area of professional services when these are to be compensated. Dressing of any injury or wound is done both by a doctor as well as a compounder, but surely it cannot be suggested that for doing this job a doctor cannot be compensated more than the compounder. Similarly, a case in Court of law is argued both by a senior and a junior lawyer, but it is difficult to accept that in matter of remuneration both should be treated equally. It is thus clear that in the field of rendering professional services at any rate the principle of equal pay for equal work would be inapplicable. In the instant case Medical Officers holding the qualification of G.C.I.M., or the qualification of L.I.M. or the qualification of D.A.M., though in charge of dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads, cannot, therefore, be treated 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. The gravamen of the appellants contention has been that in earlier proceedings the High Court had accepted the position that a holder of D.A.M. (lik e the appellant) was similar to the holder of G.C.I.M. and as such the appellant alongwith the holders of G.C.I.M. was entitled to Class `A Registration Certificate and, therefore, in the matter of remuneration she should have been treated in the same manner as the holder of G.C.I.M. all throughout her service. However, it needs to be clarified that the similarity or equality conferred on holders of G.C.I.M., L.I.M. and D.A.M. was for the purpose of their registration as practitioner of modern medicine under the Registration Act, 1956, all being put under Class `A Registration and not in the matter of proficiency. The High Court in its order had also made it clear that for the purposes of registration under the Registrat ion Act the appellant as a holder of D.A.M. was similar to G.C.I.M. and was entitled to Class `A Registration Certificate. That these three categories were not equated in the matter of proficiency will be amply borne out by the fact that righ t from the beginning the pay scales prescribed for these categories were different, highest pay scale being available to holders of G.C.I.M. the next lower being available to holders of L.I.M. and the lowest to Medical Practitioners other than G.C.I.M. and L.I.M. The contention of the appellant, therefore, that because her Diploma was regarded as similar or equivalent to G.C.I.M. for registration purposes she should be given the pay scale that was available to the holder of G.C.I.M. cannot obviously be accepted and in our view, it was rightly rejected by the Tribunal.The alternative contention also is liable to be rejected on the same basis.It is true that when the revision under G.O.M. N o. 708 was undertaken the appellant was put in the payscale ofRs.0 which was also the pay scale prescribed for Medical Officers holding L.I.M. but that was because under the earlier order of the High Court the appellant had been fixed initially in the payscale ofRs.e pay scale also meant for Medical Officers holding L.I.M. and when that payscale ofRs.0 was revised toRs.0 she was required to be given that revised scale. When the second revision was undertaken as per G.O.M. No. 574 it was perfectly open to the State Government to split the revision into two categories, one meant for Medical Officers holding L.I.M. and the other for Medical Officers other than L.I.M. as has been done in the instant case and since the appellant was not a holder of L.I.M. but fell in the other category she was, in our view, properly fixed in the lower revised payscale ofRs.