IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of equal pay for equal work is complex and requires expert evaluation of job responsibilities and qualifications.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Kakoti, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel National Health Mission (NHM) for all the respondents.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they have been working as Dental Surgeon (BDS) under the Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission, now National Health Mission (NHM) and likewise, there are a number of Medical Officers (MBBS) working under the same establishment. The petitioners contend that the respondent authorities have failed to maintain parity in pay structure between BDS and MBBS. Initially, both the categories of Doctors were paid a remuneration of Rs. 18,000/- per month while Medical Officers (Ayurvedic), Medical Officers (Homeo) were getting Rs. 15,000/- per month. After a few months, the remuneration in respect of MBBS was increased to Rs. 25,000/- and later vide Notification dated 11.01.2011 to Rs. 35,000/- per month. By the same notification, the remuneration of BDS was fixed at Rs. 29,000/- per month and that of Medical Officers (Ayur) and Medical Officers (Homeo) at Rs. 22,000/- per month. Again, by a subsequent Notification dated 30.08.2012, the remuneration in respect of MBBS was increased to Rs. 40,000/- per month and the remuneration of Medical Officers (Ayur) and Medical Officers (Homeo) were increased to Rs. 40,000/- per month while remuneration for BDS has remained at Rs. 29,000/-. It is therefore the case of the petitioners that they perform equal work, equal duties and responsibilities like Medical Officer (MBBS) and that their educational qualification was declared to be equivalent by the Govt. of India and therefore, they are entitled to equal pay for equal work. Although the petitioners have filed their representations before the respondent authorities but since the same has not been addressed and mitigated, they are before this Court through the instant writ petition.

3. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submits that the action of the respondents in treating MBBS Doctors and BDS differently cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare by its Office Memorandum dated 16.11.1984 declared the post in the field of Dental Science as Medical Post like that of MBBS Doctors. He submits that offering different pay to the same class of people by the respondent authorities has hit the mandate of Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India, which proclaims ‘equal pay for equal work’ for both men and women. He submits that equal pay for equal work for men and women means pay for equal work for everyone of between the sexes. He submits that BDS and MBBS degrees are equivalent degree, and as such, the petitioners were rightly given the same amount of remuneration at the time of their initial appointment. Subsequently, remuneration of MBBS Doctors was increased by overlooking the rights of the petitioners for equal amount of salary. He submits that the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated by the respondent authorities by not giving the petitioners equal pay with that of MBBS Doctors. He therefore submits that the respondent authorities should be directed to grant the petitioners equal pay and at par with those MBBS Doctors. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his submission relies upon the following authorities:

(1) State of Telangana Represented by its Secretary to the Government, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. 2023 SCC Online TS 38 and the Order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 20204/2023, State of Telangana & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors.

(2) North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. (2021) 17 SCC 642

(3) Order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in WP (C) No. 484/2014, Dr. Sanjay Singh Chauhan & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakha