Pay classification based on qualifications upheld, but retrospective recovery of excess salary already paid was barred.
Pharmacists falling under clause (d) of section 31 of the Pharmacy Act were not entitled to the higher pay scale reserved for fully qualified Pharmacists, because pay classification based on educational qualifications and experience was a rational distinction and the principle of equal pay for equal work did not apply mechanically across different classes. At the same time, excess salary paid for years due to no fault of the employees was not recoverable retrospectively, as equity barred recovery or adjustment of amounts already disbursed. The classification was upheld, but retrospective recovery of overpaid salary was prohibited.
Issues: (i) Whether Pharmacists falling under clause (d) of section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 were entitled to the higher pay scale meant for fully qualified Pharmacists under the Third Pay Commission recommendations. (ii) Whether excess salary already paid to the petitioners could be recovered or adjusted retrospectively.
Issue (i): Whether Pharmacists falling under clause (d) of section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 were entitled to the higher pay scale meant for fully qualified Pharmacists under the Third Pay Commission recommendations.
Analysis: The petitioners were found to be unqualified Pharmacists covered only by clause (d) of section 31, while the higher scale was reserved for Pharmacists possessing the qualifications in clauses (a) to (c). The classification was based on educational qualification and experience, which provided a rational basis for treating the two groups differently in matters of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work was held not to apply mechanically where the employees belong to different classes and the distinction rests on a reasonable classification.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the higher scale of pay as of right and the classification was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether excess salary already paid to the petitioners could be recovered or adjusted retrospectively.
Analysis: Although the petitioners had no legal entitlement to the higher scale for the relevant period, the Court took note that the higher scale had been paid for years due to no fault of the petitioners. In these circumstances, equity required that the employees should not be made to suffer recovery or adjustment of amounts already paid on account of the respondents' mistake.
Conclusion: Recovery or adjustment of the excess amount paid to the petitioners was barred.
Final Conclusion: The pay classification based on qualifications was sustained, but the petitioners were protected against retrospective recovery of amounts already disbursed in excess.
Ratio Decidendi: Where pay scales are linked to qualifying criteria and employees fall into different rationally classified categories, the principle of equal pay for equal work does not require identical pay; however, excess payment made without fault of the employee should not ordinarily be recovered retrospectively.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
