AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
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.
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.
The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the 1998 Pay Revision Commission 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.
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 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.
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 and Others Vs. Bihar Veterinary Association and Others, .
Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, pointed out, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Thiruvalluvan and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Secretary, Finance Department and others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, , 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.
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 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.