High CourtDivision BenchAppeal allowed. No costs.

The Union of India & Ors. v. Rajib Khan & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2023
Neutral Citation:[2023] 1 S.C.R. 1009

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • M. R. Shah
  • C. T. Ravikumar
Judgment Date
2023-01-16
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition and granting Nursing Allowance parity to Nursing Assistants is quashed and set aside. The writ petition claiming Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurse is dismissed.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

  • Rajib Khan
  • Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG
  • • Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. for the Appellants

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Omanakuttan K. K., Adv. for the Respondents

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal concerns nursing staff remuneration in Border Security Force establishments. Nursing Assistants (NAs) in BSF were paid Hospital Patient Care Allowance, while Staff Nurses receive Nursing Allowance. The petitioners, Union of India and others, challenged a High Court decision that NAs are entitled to Nursing Allowance on par with Staff Nurses, arguing that NAs lack the requisite educational qualifications, experience, and registration for Staff Nurse status, and therefore cannot be equated with Staff Nurses for allowance parity. The High Court had held that educational qualification cannot be a ground to deny Nursing Allowance; it also noted that duties performed by NAs were similar to Staff Nurses. The Union appealed, arguing the opposite: that pay scale classification must reflect differing qualifications and experiences, and that the Staff Nurse post requires a four-year course while NAs typically complete a one-year course, with no State/National Nursing Council registration. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the need for parity in duties, held that the Nursing Assistants do not possess the necessary qualifications or experience to be comparable with Staff Nurses and that the High Court’s view on non-ground of qualification is unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed; the High Court’s contrary orders are set aside, and the writ petition seeking parity is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India - Article 14Constitution of India - Article 16

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Equal pay for equal work
  • Classification of posts and pay structures based on educational qualifications is permissible (Executive domain)
  • Equality before law (Articles 14 and 16) not to be violated

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Appellants contend that Nursing Assistants lack requisite educational qualifications, experience and registration to be treated as Staff Nurses, and hence cannot be paid Nursing Allowance at par with Staff Nurses. They rely on established jurisprudence that pay scales can be differentiated based on qualifications and experience, and that the educational qualification can justify classification in pay structures. They submit that the High Court erred in treating qualification as immaterial to parity. The decisions cited (Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Balbir Kumar Walia; Pramod Kumar Sahoo; Mallikarjuna Rao) support classification by qualification and pay scales accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that Nursing Assistants perform duties identical to Staff Nurses and are integral to the nursing service; thus, they are entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with Staff Nurses. They argue the High Court correctly held that educational qualification cannot be a ground to deny parity, given the similar duties and service requirements; the classification should not be used to deprive parity where duties overlap.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another v. Balbir Kumar Walia and Others(2021) 8 SCC 784PositiveCited to support that different educational qualifications and experience can justify different pay scales and classifications.
Director of Elementary Education, Odisha and Others v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo(2019) 10 SCC 674PositiveCited for the principle that higher qualifications can justify higher pay scales and that classification based on qualification is permissible.
Secretary Department of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao(2015) 3 SCC 653PositiveCited for the proposition that classification of posts and pay structure may be within the exclusive domain of the Executive and based on education/experience.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against The Union of India & Ors. v. Rajib Khan & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1009 [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1009 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A v. RAJIB KHAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2023) JANUARY 16, 2023 B ## **[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]** _Service Law – Entitlement to Nursing allowance – Respondents were working as Nursing Assistants in BSF and were paid “Hospital Patient care Allowance” – Respondents claimed to be entitled to “Nursing Allowance” at par with Staff Nurses – Single Judge of the High Court held that similar duties performed by Staff Nurses & Nursing Assistants, thus respondents are entitled to Nursing allowance – It also held that educational qualification cannot be a ground for denial of Nursing Allowance – Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-Union of India – On appeal, held: The Nursing Assistants in the BSF neither have relevant experience for appointment as Staff Nurse nor they possess any educational qualification for appointment as Staff Nurse – Therefore, the case of Nursing Assistants cannot be compared with that of the Staff Nurses as both carry different educational qualification – Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a serious error in holding and directing that the Nursing Assistants serving in the BSF are entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurses._ ## **Allowing the appeal, the Court** **HELD: 1. The Nursing Assistants in the BSF neither have relevant experience for appointment as Staff Nurse nor they possess any educational qualification for appointment as Staff Nurse. Therefore, the case of Nursing Assistants cannot be compared with that of the Staff Nurses as both carry different educational qualification. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a serious error in holding and directing that the Nursing Assistants serving in the Assam Rifles/BSF are entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurses. [Para 5][1013-G-H; 1014-A-B]** C D E F G H 1009 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. - A _Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another versus Balbir Kumar Walia and others_ **(2021) 8 SCC 784;** _Director of Elementary Education, Odisha and Others versus Pramod Kumar Sahoo_ **(2019) 10 SCC 674;** _Secretary Department of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. Versus_ - B _T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao,_ **(2015) 3 SCC 653: [2014] 13 SCR149** _**–**_ **referred to.** ## **Case Law Reference** - C |**(2021)**|**8 SCC 784**|**referred to**|**Para 2.4**| |---|---|---|---| |**(2019)**|**10 SCC 674**|**referred to**|**Para 2.4**| |**[2014]**|**13 SCR 149**|**referred to**|**Para 2.4**| CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.172 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2021 of the High Court of Gauhati at Guwahati in W.A No. 305/2021. D Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. for the Appellants. Omanakuttan K. K., Adv. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by - E **M. R. SHAH, J.** 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in WA No.305 of 2021 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein -Union of India and others, not F interfering with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and holding that the original writ petitioners are entitled to Nursing Allowance, the Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal. 2. That the respondents herein are working as the Nursing Assistants in various hospitals under the establishment of Border Security G Force. All of them were being paid the ‘Hospital Patient Care Allowance’. According to the original writ petitioners they were entitled to the Nursing Allowance like it was being given to the Staff Nurse. Therefore, a writ petition was filed before the High Court. The claim of the original writ petitioners claiming Nursing Allowance at par with the Nursing Staff H was opposed by the appellants containing _inter alia_ that they are being 1011 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. RAJIB KHAN & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.] paid the special allowance known as ‘Hospital Patient Care Allowance’ A and are not entitled to the Nursing Allowance at par with Staff Nurses as they are not qualified as a Staff Nurse. However, the learned Single Judge negated the objection of the appellants – BSF by observing that the duties performed by the writ petitioners are the similar duties performed by the Staff Nurses. Learned Single Judge observed that B educational qualification cannot be a ground for denial of Nursing Allowance. Consequently, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The appeal preferred by the appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the present appeal. 2.1 Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has committed a serious error in holding that the original writ petitioners – Nursing Assistants are entitled to the Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurses. 2.2 It is submitted that so far as the qualification of the Staff Nurses is concerned, it is four years course and so far as the Nursing Assistants are concerned, they have completed only one year course which is the requirement for the post of Nursing Assistants. It is submitted that therefore, when the original writ petitioners – Nursing Assistants are not eligible for appointment as Staff Nurses and the educational qualification being different, they shall not be entitled to claim the Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurses. 2.3 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the Nursing Assistants in the BSF do not have the relevant experience and qualify only 6 months duration of Nursing Assistant Cadre and later absorbed in BSF Para Medical Set up. It is submitted that the Nursing Assistants also do not possess any registration certificate issued by the State Nursing Council and the Indian Nursing Council and therefore, they do not possess the relevant qualification and experience as mandated to receive the Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurses. 2.4 It is further submitted by Ms. Madhavi Diwan, learned ASG that the High Court has materially erred in observing that the educational qualification cannot be a ground for denial of Nursing Allowance to the Nursing Assistants. It is submitted that as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions classification of the different pay scales is C D E F G H 1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. - A permissible based upon educational qualifications, experience and nature of duties. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of **Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another versus Balbir Kumar Walia and others, (2021) 8 SCC 784; Director of Elementary Education, Odisha and Others versus Pramod Kumar Sahoo, (2019) 10 SCC 674** and **Secretary** - B **Department of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. versus T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 653.** 2.5 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal. C 3. While opposing the present appeal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – original writ petitioners has vehemently submitted that while passing the order the learned Single Judge had heavily relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court taking the view that the educational qualification cannot be a ground for denial of Nursing Allowance to the Nursing Assistants. D 3.1 It is submitted that as such the Nursing Assistants are being integral part of the nursing service and therefore the learned Single Judge was right in observing and taking the view that both the Nursing Assistants as well as the Staff Nurses are integral part of the nursing service in general and therefore, like the Staff Nurse, the Nursing E Assistants are also entitled to get the nursing allowance. It is submitted that therefore, when both the Nursing Assistants as well as the Staff Nurses are integral part of the nursing service and would be performing the similar duties, the High court has not committed any error in directing to pay Nursing Allowance to the Nursing Assistants at par with the Staff Nurse. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal. F 4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, a short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is 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? G 4.1 The High Court has taken the view that the educational qualifications cannot be a ground for denial of Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurse who can also be said to be an integral part of the nursing service in general. The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the decisions of this Court in the case of **Punjab State** H 1013 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. RAJIB KHAN & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.] ## **Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (supra), Pramod Kumar Sahoo (supra) and T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao (supra).** 4.2 In the case of **T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao (supra)** it is observed by this Court that the classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the Executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. In the case before this Court, this Court upheld the different pay scales/pay structure based on different educational qualifications. It is observed and held that considering the educational qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operators, Grade B and the order assigning duties, the classification of Data Entry Operators in different grades, does not violate any right of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution nor does it violate the constitutional protection against hostile or arbitrary discrimination. 4.3 In the case of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that different educational qualification and experience prescribed for appointment can be a ground to have different pay scales/pay structures. 4.4 In the case of **Pramod Kumar Sahoo (supra)** it is observed and held that nature of work may be more or less the same but the scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. It is further held and observed that inequality of men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ to them. In the case before this Court, this Court upheld the classification based upon the higher educational qualification for grant of higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessing higher qualification. 5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand the view taken by the High Court that the educational qualification cannot be a ground for denial of Nursing Allowance to the Nursing Assistants is unsustainable. In the present case the respective Nursing Assistants are being paid ‘Hospital Patient Care Allowance’. The Nursing Assistants in the BSF neither have relevant experience for appointment as Staff Nurse nor they possess any educational qualification for appointment as Staff Nurse. Therefore, the case of Nursing Assistants cannot be compared with that of the A B C D E F G H 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. - A Staff Nurses as both carry different educational qualification. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a serious error in holding and directing that the Nursing Assistants serving in the Assam Rifles/ BSF are entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurses. 6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above present B appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court holding and directing that the original writ petitioners – Nursing Assistants shall be entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurse is hereby quashed and set aside. C Consequently, the original writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge claiming Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurse stands dismissed. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. D Ankit Gyan (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Aarsh Choudhary, LCRAs) Appeal allowed. E F G H