# DR. C. GIRIJAMBAL v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1981] 2 S.C.R. 782
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1981-02-11
- **Case number:** Gvil Appeal No. 1173 of 1979
- **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, V. D. Tulzapurkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-c-girijambal-v-govt-of-andhra-pradesh-7966
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Con~titution :;f fndia 1950, Article 16-Medical Officers of Dispensaries--
] hrle raJegories-G.C.l.M., L.l.M. and D.A.M. degree holders-Different pay
scale for each category-Whether valid.
Profe.~sional sen1ices-Pri11ciple of equal pay for equal work-Whether clin
be invoked.
The appellant was selected for .the post of Medical
Officer in the Local
Fund, Ayurvedic Dispensary in the Zilla Parishad. She possessed a Diploma in
Ayurvedic Medicine (D.A.M.). Her salary was fixed in the scale of Rs. 125220.
Her representation to fix her pay in the higher scale had been
rejected
by the State Government on the ground that only candidates
with
'A' class
Registration could be given the higher scale of pay.
Under the Andhra Ayurvedic and
Homoeopathic Medical
Practitioners
Registration Act, 1956
holders of Diploma in Ayurvedic Medicine (D.A.M.),
holders of Graduate of the College of Integrated Medicine (G.C.l.M.) and,
holders of Licentiate in Indigenous Medicine (L.l.M.) were entitled to class
'A' Registration Certificate. Her application to the Andhra Board of Ayurveda
for registration as 'A' class Practitioner was rejected.
Allowing her petition, impugning the action of the Board of Ayurveda, the
High Court held that being a person p0ssessing a diploma
similar
to the
G.C.l.M. or L.I.M. she was entitled to be registered in class 'A' and that she
should be given all the benefits of the higher pay scale of Rs. 180-320.
The scale of pay of Rs. 180-320 for Medical Officers holding L.I.M. was
revised to Rs. 200-400. Sometime later the scales of pay were again revised.
The scale of Rs. 200-400 was split into two categories: (i) Rs. 530-1050 for
Medical Officers holding L.I.M. and (ii) Rs. 430-800 for other Medical Officers.
In the first revision she was given the scale of Rs. 200-400 but under
the second revision she was given only the scale of Rs. 430-800.
Her representation to the Government for
fixing her pa.y in the scale of
Rs. 530-1050 having not been answered, she moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which held that she was not entitled to a higher scale as
she did not possess the requisite qualifications mentioned in the relevant government order.
Before this Court it was contended on
behalf of the appellant that: (1)
Medical Officers holding the degrees of G.C.I.M. or D.A.M. perform the same
functions and discharge the same duties in dispensaries and that on the principle
of equal pay for equal work,- the appellant should be given the pay scale meant
....
• •
•
}
C. UIRIJAMBAL V. ANDHRA PRADESH
783
fur Medical Officers holding G.C.l,M. because she was entitled to class 'A" Re..
A
gistration Certificate and (2) since she had been fixed in the scale of Rs. 200400 under the first revision she should have been fixed under the second reviw
sion in the scale of Rs. 530-1050 alongwith holders of L.l.M.
Dismissing the appeal,
IIELD ; 1. The contention that because her diploma was regarded as similar
or equivalent to G.C.I.M. for registration purposes she should be given the pay
B
scale avail•ble to the holder of G.C.l.M. was rightly rejected by the tribunal.
[787 E]
2. The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked invariably
in every kind of service. It cannot be invok~ in the area of professional
services. [786 Pl
ill the instant case by rea.on of the fact that Medi<:al Officers holding the
qualificatioos uf G.C.I.M. or L.I.M. or D.A.M. were placed incharge of Zilla
Paiishad dispensaries, they cannot be treated on par with each other. If the State
Government or the Zilla Parishads prescribes different scales of pay for each category of Medical Officers no fault could be found with such prescription.
[786 H-787 Al
3. The similarity or equality conferred on holders of G.CJ.M .. I.I.M •. and
D.A.M. was for the purposes of registration as practitioners of modern medi~
cine under the Registration Act, 1956, and not in the matter of proficiency.
The High Court in its order made it clear that for the purposes of registration

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
782
DR. C. GIRIJAMBAL
v.
GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH
February 11, 1981
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, J.J
Con~titution :;f fndia 1950, Article 16-Medical Officers of Dispensaries--
] hrle raJegories-G.C.l.M., L.l.M. and D.A.M. degree holders-Different pay
scale for each category-Whether valid.
Profe.~sional sen1ices-Pri11ciple of equal pay for equal work-Whether clin
be invoked.
The appellant was selected for .the post of Medical
Officer in the Local
Fund, Ayurvedic Dispensary in the Zilla Parishad. She possessed a Diploma in
Ayurvedic Medicine (D.A.M.). Her salary was fixed in the scale of Rs. 125220.
Her representation to fix her pay in the higher scale had been
rejected
by the State Government on the ground that only candidates
with
'A' class
Registration could be given the higher scale of pay.
Under the Andhra Ayurvedic and
Homoeopathic Medical
Practitioners
Registration Act, 1956
holders of Diploma in Ayurvedic Medicine (D.A.M.),
holders of Graduate of the College of Integrated Medicine (G.C.l.M.) and,
holders of Licentiate in Indigenous Medicine (L.l.M.) were entitled to class
'A' Registration Certificate. Her application to the Andhra Board of Ayurveda
for registration as 'A' class Practitioner was rejected.
Allowing her petition, impugning the action of the Board of Ayurveda, the
High Court held that being a person p0ssessing a diploma
similar
to the
G.C.l.M. or L.I.M. she was entitled to be registered in class 'A' and that she
should be given all the benefits of the higher pay scale of Rs. 180-320.
The scale of pay of Rs. 180-320 for Medical Officers holding L.I.M. was
revised to Rs. 200-400. Sometime later the scales of pay were again revised.
The scale of Rs. 200-400 was split into two categories: (i) Rs. 530-1050 for
Medical Officers holding L.I.M. and (ii) Rs. 430-800 for other Medical Officers.
In the first revision she was given the scale of Rs. 200-400 but under
the second revision she was given only the scale of Rs. 430-800.
Her representation to the Government for
fixing her pa.y in the scale of
Rs. 530-1050 having not been answered, she moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which held that she was not entitled to a higher scale as
she did not possess the requisite qualifications mentioned in the relevant government order.
Before this Court it was contended on
behalf of the appellant that: (1)
Medical Officers holding the degrees of G.C.I.M. or D.A.M. perform the same
functions and discharge the same duties in dispensaries and that on the principle
of equal pay for equal work,- the appellant should be given the pay scale meant
....
• •
•
}
C. UIRIJAMBAL V. ANDHRA PRADESH
783
fur Medical Officers holding G.C.l,M. because she was entitled to class 'A" Re..
A
gistration Certificate and (2) since she had been fixed in the scale of Rs. 200400 under the first revision she should have been fixed under the second reviw
sion in the scale of Rs. 530-1050 alongwith holders of L.l.M.
Dismissing the appeal,
IIELD ; 1. The contention that because her diploma was regarded as similar
or equivalent to G.C.I.M. for registration purposes she should be given the pay
B
scale avail•ble to the holder of G.C.l.M. was rightly rejected by the tribunal.
[787 E]
2. The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked invariably
in every kind of service. It cannot be invok~ in the area of professional
services. [786 Pl
ill the instant case by rea.on of the fact that Medi<:al Officers holding the
qualificatioos uf G.C.I.M. or L.I.M. or D.A.M. were placed incharge of Zilla
Paiishad dispensaries, they cannot be treated on par with each other. If the State
Government or the Zilla Parishads prescribes different scales of pay for each category of Medical Officers no fault could be found with such prescription.
[786 H-787 Al
3. The similarity or equality conferred on holders of G.CJ.M .. I.I.M •. and
D.A.M. was for the purposes of registration as practitioners of modern medi~
cine under the Registration Act, 1956, and not in the matter of proficiency.
The High Court in its order made it clear that for the purposes of registration
under the Registration 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 is borne out from the
fact that right 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.l,M. and the lowest to medical prac~
titioners other than these two categories. [787 C-D]
c
D
F.
F
4. When the first revision was undertaken, the appellant was put in the pay
scale of Rs. 200-400, the one which was also given to Medical OJ!icers holding
L.I.M. because under the order of the High Court the appellant had been fixed
initially in the scale of Rs. 180-320 and when that pay scale wa. revised to
Rs. 200-400 she was required to be given that revised scale. When the second
revision was undertaken it was open to the State Government to split the scale
into two categories : one meant for Mroica.l OJ!icers hc>lding I.I.M. and the other
for Medica.l Officers other than L.I.M. Since the appellant was not a holder of
L.J.M. but fell in the other category she was properly fued in the lower revised
pay scale or Rs. 430-800. [787 G-788 A]
G
CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Gvil Appeal
No. 1173
of
1979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
18-8-1977 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad
in Representation Petition No. 286/77.
M. K. Ramamurthi, Miss R. Vaigai and J, Rama Murthi for the
Appellant.
H
A
784
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 2 S.C.R.
G. N. Rao for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TULZAPURKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave raises the question
about the eligibility of the appellant to a higher pay
scale
under
•
B
G.O.M. No. 574 P.R. dated October 20, 1975 with
etfect
from
•
November 1, 1974.
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
C
and nine months with one more year of House Surgeoncy.
Besides
Ayurvedic Medicine this course consisted of Modern Medicine also.
fhis Diploma is also included in the Second Schedule to the 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
D
Medicine) arid LI.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 Homoepathic Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Registration Act').
E
F
G
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,
Ncllore 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 tl1e pay scale of Rs. 125-220, though the post
carried a higher salary according to the advertisement [in fact the
advertisement mentioned two pay scales for the post-(i) Rs. 220425 for candidates holding the qualification of G.C.I.M. with
Hou~e
Surgeoncy and (ii) Rs. 180-320 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. 180--320 and the pay scale of
Rs. 125-220 was for candidates holding qualifications other than 'A'
Class Registration.
The appellant, therefore, applied to the Andhra
H Bc>ard of Ayurveda on payment of requisite fees to register her 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
,
<
•
• '
•
..
c. GIRIJAMBAL v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Tulzapurkar, J.)
785
consideration of the provisions of the Registration Act the High Court
held that the appellant being 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 Ziila Parishad that the appellant be
given the higher pay-scale of Rs. 180-320. The High Court's directions were carried out and the appellant was given all the benefits of
the higher scale of Rs. 180-320 with retrospective effect from the
date of her appointment.
It appears that the pay scales of Medical Officers in Ziila Parishad
and Panchayat Samitis were revised twice, once with
effect from
Maich 19, 1969 under G.O.M. No. 708 dated December 11, 1970
and second time with effect from November 1, 1974 under G.0.M.
No. 574 P.R. dated October 20, 1975. As per G.O.M. No. 708
the then existing sc:ile of Rs. 220-425 (for M.Os. holding G.C.I.M.)
was revised to Rs. 250-500 and the then existing scale of Rs. 180320 (for M.Os. holding L.l.M.) was revised to Rs. 200-400. Under
G.O.M. No. 574 the then existing scale of Rs. 250-500 was again
revised to Rs. 530-1050 and the existing scale of Rs. 200 to 400
was again revised by splitting the revision into two categories-(i)
Rs. 530 to 1050 for M.Os. holding L.I.M.
and
(ii) Rs. 430-800
for other Medical Officers.
Under the first revision the appellant was
given the scale of Rs. 200-400 and when the second revision was
undertaken she was fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 430-800
with effect from November I, 1974. She repres~nted to the Government that she should be given the scale of Rs. 530-1050 as
was
done for M.Os. holding either G.C.l.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 the scale of pay 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 the scale of Rs. 530-1050
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
and not Rs. 430-800. The Tribunal rejected
the
Representation
Petition holding that the appellant was not entitled to higher scale as
H
she did not possess the requisite qualifications mentioned in the
3--214 SCI/81
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1981] 2 S.C.R.
A
G.O.M. 574 dated October 20, 1975, and hence the appeal to
this
Court.
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
Counsel for the appellant reiterated before us the same two contentions which were urged before the Tribunal.
In the first place
counsel pointed out that in the earlier writ proceedings the High Court
had accepted the position that the appellant's qualifications
were
similar to the holders of G.C.I.M. and like the latter she was entitled
to
Class 'A' Registration and he, therefore, urged that the appellant
was entitled to the pay scale meant for
Medical
Officers
holding
G.C.I.M. right from the date of her appointment, namely, December
26, 1963, and the benefits of all the revisions of
that scale.
In
support of this contention counsel sought to invoke the principle of
equal pay for equal work as, according to him,
Medical
Officers
holdin·g either G.C.I.M. or D.A.M. perform the same functions and
discharge the same duties in dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis.
Secondly, in the alternative counsel
contended
that in any event the appellant could not be regarded as holder of
any lower qualification than a Medical Officer holding L.I.M. inasmuch as under the first revision effected by G.O.M. No. 708
both
had been fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 200-400 and, therefore, when the second revision was effected under G.O.M. No. 574
the appellant should have been fixed
in the revised scale of
Rs. 530-1050 alongwith holders of L.I.M. and there was no justifi.
cation for giving her a lower revised scale of Rs. 430-800. For the
reasons which we shall presently indicate it is not possible to accept
either of these contentions.
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 kind of service and certainly
it cannot be invoked in the area of professional services when tl1ese
are to be compensated. Dressing of any injury or wound is done
both by a doctor as well as a compounder, but surely it carmot be
suggested that for doing this job a doctor cannot be compensated
more than the compounder.
Similarly, a case in Court of law is
argned 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.l.M. or the qualification
of D.A.M., though in charge of dispensaries run by Zilla Parishads,
crumot, lherefore, be treated on par with each other and if the State
•
•
I
...
•
I
•
•
'
" -
c. GIR!JAMBAL v. ANDHRA PRADESH (Tulzapurkar, J.)
787
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 appellant's contention
has
been that in earlier proceedings the High Court had accepted the
position that a holder of D.A.M. (like the appellant) was similar to
the holder of G.C.l.M. and as such the appellant alongwith the holders
of G.C.l.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.l.M. all thrcmghout her
service.
However, it needs to be clarified that the similarity or
equality conferred on holders of G.C.l.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 bad also made it clear that for the purposes of registration
under the Registration Act the appellant as a holder of D.A.M. was
similar to G.C.l.M. and was entitled to Class 'A' Registration Certi ...
ficate.
That these three categories were not equated in the matter
of proficiency will be amply borne out by the fact that right from
the beginning the pay scales prescribed for
these categories
werd
different, highest pay scale being available to holders of G.C.l.M.
the next lower being available to holders of L.l.M. and the lowest
to Medical Practitioners other than G.C.l.M. and L.l.M. The contention of the appellant, therefore, that because her
Diploma
was
regarded as similar or equivalent to G.C.l.M. for registration purposes
she should be given the pay scale tbat was available to the holder of
G.C.I.M. r.annot obvionsly 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. No. 708
was undertaken the appellant was put in the pay scale of Rs. 200--400
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
tl1e appellant had been fixed initially in the pay scale of Rs. I 80--
320-the pay scale also meant for Medical Officers holding L.l.M.
and when that pay scale of Rs. 180--320 was revised to Rs. 200--400
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.l.M. and the other for Medical
Officers other than L.l.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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
788
SUPREME ·COURT REPORTS
(1981) 2 S.C.R.
A
category she was, in our view, properly fixed in the lower revised pay
scale of Rs. 43()....800.
As no other contention was urged the appeal is
dismissed, but
we make no order as to costs.
N.V.K.
Appeal dismissed.
• ..
t
'
-L
I