9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of order reducing salary scale for unqualified Pharmacists Application of Third Pay Commission recommendations Principle of 'equal pay for equal work' Analysis: 1. The petitions were filed challenging an order reducing the salary scale of Pharmacists who were not qualified as per the Pharmacy Act. The petitioners had been receiving a higher scale of pay than recommended due to an error in implementation. 2. The respondents justified the salary reduction based on the Third Pay Commission recommendations, which classified Pharmacists into two categories based on qualifications. The petitioners, falling under Clause (d) of Section 31 of the Act, were entitled to a lower pay scale, contrary to what they had been receiving. 3. The petitioners argued that despite possessing qualifications under Clause (d) of Section 31, they had been treated similarly to qualified Pharmacists and received the higher pay scale since 1973. The retrospective reduction in salary was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. The Court noted that the Third Pay Commission's recommendations differentiated between qualified and unqualified Pharmacists for salary purposes. The petitioners, falling under Clause (d), were rightfully entitled to the lower pay scale as per the classification. 5. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was raised by the petitioners, claiming they performed the same duties as those receiving the higher pay scale. However, the Court emphasized that pay scales can vary based on qualifications and experience, justifying the classification by the Commission. 6. Referring to a previous case, the Court clarified that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be applied when distinct categories exist based on qualifications. The decision to implement different pay scales for different categories was found to be reasonable and not arbitrary. 7. Despite acknowledging the error in payment due to the fault of the respondents, the Court directed that no recovery of excess amounts already paid to the petitioners should be made, considering the petitioners' lack of responsibility for the error. 8. The petitions were partially allowed, with no costs imposed on either party. The Court upheld the validity of the order reducing the salary scale for unqualified Pharmacists, based on the Third Pay Commission recommendations and the classification of Pharmacists according to qualifications.
|
