Supreme Court clarifies Nursing Allowance eligibility based on qualifications: Union of India vs. Rajib Khan (2023)

Date of the Judgment: January 16, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 40

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can differences in educational qualifications justify different pay scales and allowances for employees performing similar duties? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning Nursing Assistants and Staff Nurses within the Border Security Force (BSF). The court clarified that educational qualifications can indeed be a valid basis for differentiating allowances, overturning a High Court decision that had granted equal nursing allowances to both groups. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The respondents, working as Nursing Assistants in various BSF hospitals, were receiving a ‘Hospital Patient Care Allowance.’ They claimed they were entitled to the same ‘Nursing Allowance’ as Staff Nurses, arguing their duties were similar. The BSF opposed this, stating that Nursing Assistants have a one-year course compared to the four-year course for Staff Nurses and are therefore not qualified for the same allowance. The Nursing Assistants also did not possess registration certificates from the State Nursing Council or the Indian Nursing Council.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Nursing Assistants filed a writ petition in the High Court, seeking the same Nursing Allowance as Staff Nurses. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition, stating that the duties performed by Nursing Assistants were similar to those of Staff Nurses, and educational qualifications should not be a ground for denying the allowance. The Union of India appealed this decision, but the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s decision. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The court considered the principle of equal pay for equal work, which is often invoked in service law matters. However, the court also emphasized that this principle does not mean that all employees performing similar duties must receive the same pay and allowances. The court highlighted that differences in educational qualifications, experience, and the nature of duties can justify different pay scales and allowances. The court also noted that the classification of posts and determination of pay structures are within the executive’s domain, and tribunals should not interfere with the executive’s wisdom in prescribing pay structures.

Arguments

Appellants (Union of India) Arguments:

• The Staff Nurses undergo a four-year course, while Nursing Assistants complete only a one-year course, making them ineligible for the same allowance.

• Nursing Assistants do not have the relevant experience and qualification as they only undergo a 6-month duration of Nursing Assistant Cadre, and lack registration certificates from the State Nursing Council and the Indian Nursing Council.

• Educational qualifications are a valid basis for differentiating pay scales and allowances, as established in previous Supreme Court decisions.

• The High Court erred in stating that educational qualifications cannot be a ground for denying Nursing Allowance.

Respondents (Nursing Assistants) Arguments:

• Nursing Assistants are an integral part of the nursing service and perform similar duties as Staff Nurses.

• Educational qualifications should not be a ground for denying Nursing Allowance when both groups are part of the nursing service.

• The High Court correctly relied on previous decisions that held educational qualifications are not a valid reason to deny the Nursing Allowance.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. “Whether in a case where the educational qualifications for the post of Nursing Assistant and Staff Nurse are different, still the Nursing Assistants shall be entitled to the Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurses?”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The court followed Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another versus Balbir Kumar Walia and others, (2021) 8 SCC 784*, stating that different educational qualifications and experience can justify different pay scales.
• The court followed Director of Elementary Education, Odisha and Others versus Pramod Kumar Sahoo, (2019) 10 SCC 674*, holding that pay scales can vary based on academic qualifications, even if the nature of work is similar, and that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ does not apply to groups with differing qualifications.
• The court followed Secretary Department of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. versus T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 653*, emphasizing that the determination of pay structures is within the executive’s domain.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that different educational qualifications and experience levels can justify different pay scales and allowances. The court emphasized that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply when there are clear differences in qualifications and experience. The court also respected the executive’s authority in determining pay structures and classifications. The court also considered the fact that the Nursing Assistants did not have the relevant experience and qualification as they only undergo a 6-month duration of Nursing Assistant Cadre, and lack registration certificates from the State Nursing Council and the Indian Nursing Council.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the High Court’s view that educational qualifications cannot be a ground for denying the allowance. The court stated that “the view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the decisions of this Court”. The court also observed that “the classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the Executive”. The court further noted that “different educational qualification and experience prescribed for appointment can be a ground to have different pay scales/pay structures.”

The court’s reasoning was based on established legal principles and precedents. The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing law regarding pay scales and allowances based on educational qualifications and experience.

Key Takeaways

• Educational qualifications are a valid basis for differentiating pay scales and allowances.
• The principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply when there are differences in qualifications and experience.
• The executive has the authority to determine pay structures and classifications.
• Nursing Assistants in the BSF are not entitled to the same Nursing Allowance as Staff Nurses due to differences in qualifications and experience.

This judgment clarifies that while employees may perform similar duties, differences in educational qualifications, experience, and nature of duties can justify different pay scales and allowances. This has implications for various service law matters where employees claim parity in pay and allowances.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the original writ petition filed by the Nursing Assistants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that differences in educational qualifications and experience can justify different pay scales and allowances. This is in line with previous decisions of the Supreme Court. There is no change in the previous positions of law. The court upheld the principle that the executive has the authority to determine pay structures and classifications.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Rajib Khan clarifies that Nursing Assistants are not entitled to the same Nursing Allowance as Staff Nurses due to differences in educational qualifications and experience. The court emphasized that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply when there are clear differences in qualifications and experience. The judgment upholds the executive’s authority in determining pay structures and classifications, and it reaffirms existing legal principles regarding pay scales and allowances.