{"id":238543,"date":"1989-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989"},"modified":"2016-06-03T04:38:10","modified_gmt":"2016-06-02T23:08:10","slug":"mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989","title":{"rendered":"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical … on 9 March, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical … on 9 March, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1256, \t\t 1989 SCR (1) 957<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, K.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMEWA RAM KANOJIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/03\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1256\t\t  1989 SCR  (1) 957\n 1989 SCC  (2) 235\t  JT 1989 (1)\t512\n 1989 SCALE  (1)280\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1989 SC1308\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution  of  India,  1950:  Articles  14,  16\t and\n39(d)--'Equal  pay for equal work'--Principle of--Cannot  be\ninvoked invariably in every kind of service--Particularly in\narea  of  professional services-Open to\t State\tto  classify\nemployees  on basis of qualifications, duties and  responsi-\nbilities of posts.\n    'Hearing\t       Therapist'--'Senior\t      Speech\npathologist'--'Senior physiotherapist'--'Senior\t Occupation-\nal  Therapist'--'Audiologist'-'Speech  pathologist'--Differ-\nent scales of pay for the posts--Permissibility of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The petitioner was initially appointed in the year\t1967\nto  the post of 'Teacher Co-ordinator' in the pay  scale  of\nRs.210-425 in a Research Project funded by the Indian  Coun-\ncil  of Medical Research. As the unit where  the  petitioner\nwas  employed was taken over by the All India  Institute  of\nMedical Sciences on 1.7.1970 his services stood\t transferred\nto  the said Institute and he continued to hold the post  of\nTeacher\t Coordinator in the Institute. Though the  post\t was\nredesignated as 'Hearing Therapist' with effect from 3.8.72,\nthe same scale of pay, viz Rs.210-425 continued.\n    Pursuant to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commis-\nsion  the  pay scale of 'Hearing Therapist  was\t revised  to\nRs.425-700  with  effect from 1.1.1973, and since  then\t the\npetitioner continued to draw salary in the said scale.\n    The\t petitioner  made  several  representations  to\t the\nrespondentauthorities  to revise his pay scale and to  place\nhim in the pay scale prescribed for 'Speech Pathologist' and\n'Audiologist' viz. Rs.650-1200. Since no relief was  granted\nthe  petitioner\t invoked the jurisdiction of this  Court  by\nmeans of a writ petition under Article 32.\n     The petitioner contended in his writ petition, that  as\n'Hearing  Therapist' he performs the same duties  and  func-\ntions as 'Senior Speech Pathologist', 'Senior Physio  Thera-\npist', 'Senior Audiologist' and\n958\n'Speech Pathologist' that the qualifications prescribed\t for\nthe aforesaid posts are almost similar and they are  working\nin  the\t same institution under the same employer,  yet\t the\nrespondent-authorities practised discrimination in  refusing\nto accept his claim for equal pay. It was further  contended\nthat the Third Pay Commission ignored the claim of  'Hearing\nTherapist'  although it had granted higher scale of pay\t for\nsimilar posts of 'Speech Therapist', 'Senior Speech Patholo-\ngist',\tand  'Audiologist',  and  that\t'Speech\t Therapists'\nperforming  similar  types of duty as are performed  by\t the\npetitioner had been granted higher pay scale in other organ-\nisations  like\tSafdarjung  Hospital,  PGI  Chandigarh,\t and\nMedical College, Rohtak. The respondents having thus  failed\nto implement the Directive Principle of 'Equal pay for equal\nwork'  as  contained in Art. 39(d) of  the  Constitution  in\nviolation of Arts. 14 and 16, the petitioner claimed  relief\nfor  the  issuance of a writ of mandamus directing  the\t re-\nspondents for fixing his pay in the scale of Rs.410-950 with\neffect\tfrom  1.1.1970,\t and  thereafter  in  the  scale  of\nRs.650-1200 with effect from 1.1.1973.\n    The respondents contested the writ petition by asserting\nthat  the  petitioner cannot compare  himself  with  'Senior\nSpeech Therapist'. 'Senior Physio Therapist', 'Senior  Occu-\npational Therapist', 'Audiologist' or 'Senior Therapist'  as\nqualifications,\t duties\t and functions of  these  posts\t are\naltogether different and distinct from those prescribed\t for\n'Hearing  Therapist', that there is no equality between\t the\npetitioner and the persons holding the aforesaid posts, that\nthe Institute had created different posts with different pay\nscales\thaving\tregard to the  qualifications,\tduties,\t and\nresponsibilities  of  the posts. The  petitioner's  plea  of\ndiscrimination was emphatically denied.\nDismissing the writ petition, the Court,\n    HELD: The principle of 'Equal pay for equal work' cannot\nbe invoked invariably in every kind of service,\t particular-\nly, in the area of professional services. [967H]\n    Dr.\t C.  Girijambal\t v. Government\tof  Andhra  Pradesh,<\/a>\n[1981] 2 SCR 782 relied on.\n    In\tthe instant case, even assuming that the  petitioner\nperforms similar duties and functions as those performed  by\nan  'Audiologist', it is not sufficient to uphold his  claim\nfor  equal  pay.  In judging the equality of  work  for\t the\npurposes  of equal pay, regard must be had not only  to\t the\nduties and functions but also to the educational  qualifica-\ntions,\n959\nqualitative  difference and the measures  of  responsibility\nprescribed for the respective posts. Even if the duties\t and\nfunctions  are\tof  similar nature but\tif  the\t educational\nqualifications\tprescribed for the two posts  are  different\nand there is difference in measure of responsibilities,\t the\nprinciple  of  'Equal Pay for Equal Work' would\t not  apply.\n[964H; 965A-B]\n    State of Mysore v. Narasing Rao,<\/a> [1968] 1 SCR 407; Union\nof India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli,<\/a> [1973] 3 SCC 592; Jammu &\nKashmir v. Triloki Nath Khose & Ors.,<\/a> [1974] 1 SCC 19; Ganga\nRam v. Union of India,<\/a> [1970] 3 SCR 481; Mohammad Shujat Ali\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
of All India Customs & Central Excise Stenographers  (Recog-
\nnised) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 91\t and
\nState of U.P. & Ors. v. Sh. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors.,<\/a> [1989]  1
\nSCC 121 referred to.\n<\/p>\n
    Merely  because  Speech  Therapists\t performing  similar
\nduties\tand functions in other institutions are paid  higher
\npay scale is no good ground to accept the petitioner’s claim
\nfor equal pay. In the absence of any material placed  before
\nthe  Court  it is not possible to record findings  that\t the
\npetitioner  is denied equality before the law. Moreover,  if
\nthe employer is not the same the principle of ‘Equal pay for
\nequal work’ would not be applicable. [969E-F]
\n    The\t doctrine  of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ is  not  an
\nabstract one, it is open to the State to prescribe different
\nscales\tof pay for different posts having regard  to  educa-
\ntional\tqualifications, duties and responsibilities  of\t the
\npost.  The  principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’  is\t ap-
\nplicable when employees holding the same rank perform  simi-
\nlar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibili-
\nties  are treated differently. The application of  the\tdoc-
\ntrine would arise where employees are equal in every respect
\nbut  they  are denied equality in matters  relating  to\t the
\nscale  of pay. The principle of ‘Equal Pay for\tEqual  Work’
\nhas been enforced by this Court. [962D-F]
\n    Randhir  Singh  v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a> [1982]  1\t SCC
\n618; Direndra Chemoli & Anr. v. State of U.P., [1986] 1\t SCC
\n637;  V.J.  Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India &  Ors.,<\/a>  [1985]
\n(Supp.)\t SCC 7; P. Savita v. Union of India &  Ors.,  [1985]
\n(Supp.) SCR 101; Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana,<\/a> [1987]  4
\nSCC  634  and  Jai Pal & Ors. v. State of  Haryana  &  Ors.,
\n[1988] 3 SCC 354, referred to.\n<\/p>\n
960<\/span><\/p>\n
    While considering the question of application of princi-
\nple of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ it has to be borne in mind
\nthat  it is open to the State to classify employees  on\t the
\nbasis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of\t the
\nposts concerned. If the classification has reasonable  nexus
\nwith the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in\t the
\nadministration, the State would be justified in\t prescribing
\ndifferent pay scale but if the classification does not stand
\nthe  test  of  reasonable nexus and  the  classification  is
\nrounded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be viola-
\ntive of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must
\nbe among the equals, unequals cannot claim equality.  [962G-
\nH; 963A-B]<\/p>\n
&
\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4611 of
\n1983.\n<\/p>\n
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
\nGobinda Mukhoty and K.N. Rai for the Petitioner.
\nA. Mariarputham for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SINGH, J. By means of this petition under Article 32  of
\nthe Constitution the petitioner has raised a grievance\tthat
\nthe Respondent-Authorities have practised discrimination  in
\nviolation  of  Articles\t 14 and 16 of  the  Constitution  in
\nrefusing  to pay him salary in the scale of  pay  prescribed
\nfor similarly placed employees. He has invoked the  doctrine
\nof  “Equal  Pay for Equal Work” as enshrined  under  Article
\n39(d) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
    In\torder  to appreciate petitioner’s  grievance  it  is
\nnecessary  to  refer to relevant facts giving rise  to\tthis
\npetition. The petitioner was initially appointed in 1967  to
\nthe  post of Teacher Co-ordinator in the pay scale  of\tRs.2
\n10-425\tin  the\t Research Project  “Rehabilitation  Unit  in
\nAudiology  and\tSpeech Pathology” a project  funded  by\t the
\nIndian\tCouncil\t of Medical Research under  PL-480  research
\nscheme with the special assistance of the Social Rehabilita-
\ntion  Services (formerly Vocational Rehabilitation  Adminis-
\ntration). The aforesaid unit was taken over by the All India
\nInstitute  of  Medical Sciences on 1.7. 1970  alongwith\t the
\nstaff  attached to the said unit. The petitioner’s  services
\nstood  transferred  to the All India  Institute\t of  Medical
\nSciences (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) and\t the
\npetitioner continued to hold the post of Teacher Coordinator
\nin the Institute. On the recommendation
\n961<\/span>
\nof  the\t Head of the Department of Rehabilitation  Unit\t the
\npetitioner’s  post was redesignated as\t‘Hearing  Therapist’
\nwith  effect  from 3.8. 1972 but he continued  to  draw\t the
\nsalary\tin the same scale of pay of Rs.210425. In  pursuance
\nto the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission as adopt-
\ned  by the Institute the pay scale of Hearing Therapist\t was
\nrevised to Rs.425-700 with effect from 1.1.1973. Since\tthen
\nthe petitioner has continued to draw salary in the pay scale
\nof  Rs.425-700. The petitioner made several  representations
\nto the respondentauthorities to revise his pay scale and  to
\nplace  him in the pay scale prescribed for the\t“Speech\t Pa-
\nthologist”  and\t “Audiologist” in the pay scale\t of  Rs.650-
\n1200.  Since  no relief was granted to him  he\tinvoked\t the
\njurisdiction  of this Court by means of this petition  under
\nArticle 32 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioner’s main grievance is that ‘Hearing  Thera-
\npist’  perform\tthe  same duties and  functions\t as  ‘Senior
\nSpeech\t Pathologist’,\t‘Senior\t Physiotherapist’,   ‘Senior
\nOccupational Therapist’, ‘Audiologist’, and ‘Speech Patholo-
\ngist’, yet the respondents have practised discrimination  in
\npaying salary to the petitioner in a lower scale of pay. The
\npetitioner  has asserted that the  qualification  prescribed
\nfor  the  aforesaid posts are almost similar  and  they\t are
\nworking in the same institution under the same employer\t but
\nthe respondent-authorities have practised discrimination  in
\nrefusing to accept the petitioner’s claim for equal pay. The
\npetitioner has further raised a grievance that the Third Pay
\nCommission ignored the claim of ‘Hearing Therapist’ although
\nit  has\t granted higher scale of pay for  similar  posts  of
\n‘Speech Therapist’, ‘Senior Speech Pathologist’ and ‘Audiol-
\nogist’.\t He has asserted that Speech  Therapists  performing
\nsimilar\t kind of duties as performed by the petitioner\thave
\nbeen  granted higher pay scale in other\t organisations\tlike
\nSafdarjang  Hospital,  P.G.I.  Chandigarh,  Medical  College
\nRohtak and Ali Yaver Jung National Institute for the Hearing
\nHandicapped,  Hyderabad.  The petitioner contends  that\t the
\nrespondents  have failed to implement the Directive  Princi-
\nples  of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ as contained in  Article
\n39(d) of the Constitution in violation of Articles 14 and 16
\nof the Constitution. He has claimed relief for the  issuance
\nof writ of mandamus directing the respondents which  include
\nAll  India Institute of Medical Sciences and Union of  India
\nfor  fixing the petitioner’s pay in the scale of  Rs.400-950
\nwith  effect  from 1.1.1970 and thereafter in the  scale  of
\nRs.650-1200  with effect from 1.1.1973. In defence  the\t re-
\nspondents assert that the petitioner cannot compare  himself
\nwith Senior Speech Therapist, Senior Physiotherapist, Senior
\nOccupational  Therapist, Audiologist or Speech Therapist  as
\nqualifications, duties and functions of those posts
\n962<\/span>
\nare altogether different and distinct from those  prescribed
\nfor  Hearing  Therapist. There is no  equality\tbetween\t the
\npetitioner  and\t persons holding the  aforesaid\t posts.\t The
\nInstitute  has\tcreated different posts with  different\t pay
\nscales\thaving regard to the qualifications,  duties,  func-
\ntions  and responsibilities of the posts. The petitioner  is
\nnot  entitled to equate himself with the incumbents  holding
\nthe  posts of Senior Speech Therapist,\tSenior\tPhysiothera-
\npist, Senior Occupational Therapist, Audiologist and  Speech
\nTherapist.  The petitioner’s plea of discrimination  is\t em-
\nphatically denied.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t doctrine of “Equal Pay for Equal Work” is  not\t ex-
\npressly declared a fundamental fight under the Constitution.
\nBut  Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the\tCon-
\nstitution  declares  the constitutional goal  enjoining\t the
\nState not to deny any person equality before law in  matters
\nrelating to employment including the scales of pay.  Article
\n39(d)  read  with  Articles 14 and 16  of  the\tConstitution
\nenjoins the State that where all things are equal and person
\nholding indentical posts, performing indentical and  similar
\nduties under the same employer should not be treated differ-
\nently in the matter of their pay. The doctrine of ‘Equal Pay
\nfor Equal Work’ is not abstract one, it is open to the State
\nto  prescribe  different scales of pay for  different  posts
\nhaving\tregard\tto educational\tqualifications,\t duties\t and
\nresponsibilities  of the post. The principle .of ‘Equal\t Pay
\nfor  Equal  Work’ is applicable when employees\tholding\t the
\nsame  rank perform similar functions and  discharge  similar
\nduties\tand  responsibilities are treated  differently.\t The
\napplication  of\t doctrine would arise  where  employees\t are
\nequal  in  every  respect but they are\tdenied\tequality  in
\nmatters\t relating  to  the scale of pay.  The  principle  of
\n“Equal\tPay for Equal Work” has been enforced by this  Court
\nin Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a> [1982] 1 SCC 618;
\nDhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State ofU. P., [1986] 1 SCC 637;
\nV.J.  Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a>[1985]  (Supp.)
\nSCC  7; P. Savita v. Union of India & Ors.,  [1985]  (Supp.)
\nSCR 101; Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana,<\/a> [1987] 4 SCC\t 634
\nand Jai Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1988] 3\t SCC\n<\/p>\n
354.  In  all these cases this Court granted relief  on\t the
\napplication of the doctrine of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’.\n<\/p>\n
     While considering the question of application of  prin-
\nciple  of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ it has to be  borne  in
\nmind  that it is open to the State to classify employees  on
\nthe basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities  of
\nthe  posts concerned. If the classification  has  reasonable
\nnexus  with the objective sought to be achieved,  efficiency
\nin  the\t administration,  the State would  be  justified  in
\nprescribing
\n963<\/span>
\ndifferent pay scale but if the classification does not stand
\nthe  test  of  reasonable nexus and  the  classification  is
\nrounded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be viola-
\ntive  of  Articles 14 and 16 of the  Constitution.  Equality
\nmust be among the equals, Unequals cannot claim equality.
\n    In the writ petition, the petitioner claimed parity with
\nthe  pay  scale\t prescribed for\t Senior’  Speech  Therapist,
\nSenior\t physiotherapist,  Senior  Occupational\t  Therapist,
\nAudiologist and Speech Pathologist but during the course  of
\nhearing\t Sri Gobind Mukhoty, learned counsel for  the  peti-
\ntioner confined the petitioner’s case for parity with  ‘Aud-
\niologist’  only.  He urged that the  educational  qualifica-
\ntions,\tduties\tand  functions of  ‘Hearing  Therapist’\t and
\n‘Audiologist’ are similar, if not the same, and there is  no
\nreasonable justification for prescribing lower pay scale  of
\npay to Hearing Therapist. A Hearing Therapist is required to
\ntreat  the  deaf and other patients suffering  from  hearing
\ndefects. His function is to help in rehabilitation of  those
\nwhose hearing capacity is impaired. The Hearing\t Therapist’s
\nmain function is to train the patient to facilitate  maximum
\nexpressive  and receptive communication skill. An  ‘Audiolo-
\ngist’  pertains to the science of hearing. His work  is\t de-
\nsigned to coordinate the separate professional skills  which
\ncontribute to study, treatment and rehabilitation of persons
\nwith impaired hearing. A person holding the post of Audiolo-
\ngist is a specialist in the non-medical evaluation,  habili-
\ntation and rehabilitation of those who suffer from  language
\nand  speech  disorders.\t Generally,  Hearing  Therapist\t and
\nAudiologist  both  perform duties and functions\t is  helping
\nrehabilitation of patients suffering from hearing disorders,
\ntheir  duties  and functions appear to be similar,  but\t the
\npetitioner  has\t not  placed material before  the  Court  to
\ndemonstrate  that  the\tduties and  functions  performed  by
\nHearing Therapist is same or similar as that performed by an
\nAudiologist. The petitioner has placed reliance on a certif-
\nicate issued by the Head of Department of Otorhinolaryngolgy
\nwhich enumerates duties, functions which the petitioner\t has
\nbeen performing while working as Hearing Therapist.  Accord-
\ning to this certificate the petitioner has been carrying out
\nthe following functions:\n<\/p>\n
    “1.\t Diagnosis  of\tthe  impairment\t of  hearing  cases.
\n(Detailed diagnosis).\n<\/p>\n
    2. Audiological evaluation i.e. heating aid\t evaluation,
\nhearing and prescription and autitory training.\n<\/p>\n
964<\/span><\/p>\n
3. Parent counselling and guidance.\n<\/p>\n
   4. Referring to different experts for their opinion\tsuch
\nas  Physiotherapist, Occupational Therapist,  Clinical\tPsy-
\nchologist,  Ear Mould Technician, Paediatrician,  Paediatric
\nNeurologist and Opthalmologist, Audiometry Technical and  to
\nENT Specialist.\n<\/p>\n
5. Speech and language therapy.\n<\/p>\n
6. Integration of hearing handicapped with normal persons.\n<\/p>\n
   7.  Integration  of\thearing loss  children\twith  normal
\nhearing children.\n<\/p>\n
   8. Guidance to the teachers of normal schools where there
\nis any hard of heating case is studying.\n<\/p>\n
   9.  Writing of papers and books on the basis of  personal
\nexperience and research.\n<\/p>\n
   10. Speech therapy to normal hearing persons as and\twhen
\nreferred to them.\n<\/p>\n
   11. Referring the hearing handicapped children to special
\nschools for the deaf and when a child is unable to study  in
\na normal school.\n<\/p>\n
   12. Educational rehabilitation of any age group of  hear-
\ning loss cases. ”
\nThe petitioner has, however, failed to place material before
\nthe Court showing the corresponding duties and functions  of
\nan  Audiologist in the Institute. In the absence  of  duties
\nand  functions of an Audiologist it is not possible for\t the
\nCourt  to  record  findings that the  duties  and  functions
\nperformed by Hearing Therapist is similar to those performed
\nby  an Audiologist more so when the respondents have  denied
\nthe  petitioner’s claim in the counter-affidavit. The  peti-
\ntioner’s  claim that he performs the same duties  and  func-
\ntions  as those performed by an Audiologist under  the\tsame
\nemployer cannot therefore be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
    Even  assuming  that  the  petitioner  performs  similar
\nduties\tand functions as those performed by an\tAudiologist,
\nit is not sufficient to
\n965<\/span>
\nuphold\this  claim for equal pay. As  already  observed,  in
\njudging the equality of work for the purposes of equal\tpay,
\nregard must be had not only to the duties and functions\t but
\nalso to the educational qualifications, qualitative  differ-
\nence  and the measures of responsibility prescribed for\t the
\nrespective  posts. Even if the duties and functions  are  of
\nsimilar\t nature but if the educational\tqualifications\tpre-
\nscribed for the two posts are different and there is differ-
\nence in measure of responsibilities, the principle of ‘Equal
\nPay  for  Equal Work’ would not apply.\tUnder  the  relevant
\nRules  framed  by the Institute qualifications for  the\t two
\nclass  of posts, namely, Audiologist and Hearing  Therapist’
\nare as under:\n<\/p>\n
Audiologist Qualifications  Hearing Therapist Qualifications
\nEssential\t\t\tEssential\n<\/p>\n
1. A graduate in Science\/\t1. A graduate in Science or
\nArts or Medicines, from\t\tArts of a recognised Univer-
\na recognised University.\tsity in India or abroad.\n<\/p>\n
2. Master’s degree in Audiology\t 2. Trained teacher for the
\nor Otolaryngology from a\t deaf, such as Certified
\nrecognised Institution\/\t\t Teacher for Deaf
\nUniversity\t\t\t (C.T.D\t ….  Dip.)\n<\/p>\n
3. Three years teaching\/       3. Teaching experience at a
\nresearch experience in\t     recognised school for the deaf
\nthe field of Audiology.\t     in India for not less than
\n\t\t\t       three years.\n<\/p>\n
Desirable\n<\/p>\n
 1. Ph.D. in Audiology from a
\n   recognised University.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Practical experience of
\n   working in a speech and
\n   Hearing Rehabilitation
\n   Centre.\n<\/p>\n
 3. Journalistic or literary
\n    activity in relation to
\n    Audiology.\n<\/p>\n
966<\/span><\/p>\n
A  perusal  of\tthe above chart would  show  that  different
\neducational qualifications are prescribed for the two posts.
\nFor  an Audiologist a Master’s Degree in  Otolaryngology  or
\nAudiology is an essential qualification but no such Master’s
\nDegree is prescribed for Hearing Therapist instead a diploma
\nas Certified Teacher for Deaf is the essential qualification
\nfor  the said post. A comparison of the qualifications\tpre-
\nscribed\t for  the two posts clearly  indicates\tthat  higher
\nqualification  is  prescribed for the post  of\tAudiologist.
\nThere appears to be qualitative difference in the  responsi-
\nbilities of the two posts as an Audiologist possesses higher
\nqualification. It is therefore manifest that on the basis of
\neducational qualifications two posts cannot be equated. Even
\nif  the functions and duties of two posts are similar it  is
\nopen  to the State to prescribe different scales of  pay  on
\nthe  basis  of\tdifference  in\teducational  qualifications.
\nDifferent  treatment to persons belonging to the same  class
\nis a permissible classification on the basis of\t educational
\nqualifications.\n<\/p>\n
    There  are several decisions of this Court where  educa-
\ntional qualifications have been recognised as a valid  basis
\nfor  classification.  In State of Mysore v.  Narasingh\tRao,<\/a>
\n[1968]\t1  SCR 407 this Court held that\t higher\t educational
\nqualifications\tsuch as success in S.S.L.C. examination\t are
\nrelevant considerations for fixation of higher pay scale for
\ntracers\t who  had passed the S.S.L.C.  examination  and\t the
\nclassification of two grades of tracers in Mysore State, one
\nfor matriculate tracers with higher pay scale and the  other
\nfor  non-matriculate tracers with lower pay scale, was\theld
\nvalid.\tIt  is pertinent to note that matriculate  and\tnon-
\nmatriculate  tracers both constituted the same service\tper-
\nforming\t the same duties and functions, yet the\t Court\theld
\nthat higher pay scale prescribed for the matriculate tracers
\non  the\t basis of higher educational qualification  was\t not
\nviolative  of  Articles 14 and 16 of  the  Constitution.  In
\nUnion  of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli,<\/a> [1973] 3  SCC\t 592
\nclassification\tmade on the basis of educational  qualifica-
\ntion  for purposes of promotion was upheld by this Court  on
\nthe ground that the classification made on the basis of such
\na  requirement was not without reference to  the  objectives
\nsought\tto  be achieved and there could be  no\tquestion  of
\ndiscrimination. In State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki\tNath
\nKhose  & Ors.,<\/a> [1974] 1 SCC 19 cadre of Assistant  Engineers
\nincluded of Degree holders and Diploma-holders, they consti-
\ntuted one class of service but for promotion to the post  of
\nExecutive  Engineers  only those  Assistant  Engineers\twere
\neligible  for promotion who possessed Bachelor’s  Degree  in
\nEngineering  and the Diploma-holders were eligible  only  if
\nthey had put in 7 years minimum service no such\t restriction
\nwas prescribed for Degree-holders. The
\n967<\/span>
\nDiploma-holder\tAssistant Engineers challenged the  validity
\nof the rule on the ground that it denied them equal opportu-
\nnity of promotion, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
\nConstitution.  On  a detailed consideration  a\tConstitution
\nBench of this Court upheld the classification on the  ground
\nof  difference in educational qualification. The Court\theld
\nthat  classification  rounded on the  basis  of\t educational
\nqualification had a reasonable nexus to achieve\t administra-
\ntive  efficiency in Engineering Services. The Court  approv-
\ningly  referred\t to the decisions of the Court in  State  of
\nMysore v. Narasing Rao,<\/a> [1968] 1 SCR 407; Ganga Ram v. Union
\nof India,<\/a> [1970] 3 SCR 481 and Union of India v. Dr.  (Mrs.)
\nS.B. Kohli,<\/a> [1973] 3 SCC 592. The Court upheld the classifi-
\ncation\tand  refused to grant any relief  to  Diploma-holder
\nEngineers. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India &
\nOrs.<\/a>  etc., [1975] 1 SCR 449 another Constitution  Bench  of
\nthis Court upheld the classification of Supervisors into two
\nclasses,  graduates  and non-graduates for  the\t purpose  of
\npromotion  to the post of Assistant Engineers on the  ground
\nof  educational\t qualification although both  the  class  of
\nsupervisors  constituted the same service. In Federation  of
\nAll  India  Customs & Central Excise  Stenographers  (Recog-
\nnised)\t&  Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1988]  3  SCC  91
\nclaim  of Personal Assistants and Stenographers attached  to
\nthe  Head of Departments in the Customs and  Central  Excise
\nDepartment  of\tthe  Ministry of Finance for  equal  pay  in
\nparity\twith the Personal Assistants and  Stenographers\t at-
\ntached\tto the Joint Secretaries and Officers above them  in
\nthe  Ministry of Finance was rejected by this Court  on\t the
\nground\tof  the\t functional requirement of  the\t work  done,
\ntraining,  and responsibility prescribed for the two  posts.
\nIn State of U.P. & Ors. v. Sh. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors.,<\/a> [1989]
\n1  SCC 121 the question arose whether it was permissible  to
\nhave  two different pay scales in the cadre of Bench  Secre-
\ntaries,\t for persons performing the same duties\t and  having
\nthe  same  responsibilities.  In the light  of\tthe  various
\ndecisions  of this Court it was held that the  principle  of
\n“equal pay for equal work”, has no mechanical application in
\nevery  case of similar work. Articles 14 and 16 permit\trea-
\nsonable\t classification\t rounded on rational basis,  it\t is,
\ntherefore,  permissible to provide two different pay  scales
\nin  the same cadre on the basis of selection based on  merit
\nwith due regard to experience and seniority. The Court\theld
\nthat  in  such a situation the principle of  equal  pay\t for
\nequal work did not apply.\n<\/p>\n
    We\twould like to emphasise that the principle of  equal
\npay  for  equal work cannot be invoked invariably  in  every
\nkind  of service, particularly, in the area of\tprofessional
\nservices.  In  Dr.  C. Girijambal v.  Government  of  Andhra
\nPradesh,<\/a> [1981] 2 SCR 782 it was contended
\n968<\/span>
\nbefore the Court that medical officers holding the degree of
\nGraduate from the College of Integrated Medicine (GCIM)\t and
\nholders of Licentiate in Indigenous Medicine (LIM) performed
\nthe same functions and discharged the same duties in dispen-
\nsaries\tand  therefore on the principle of  “equal  pay\t for
\nequal work” both class of persons were entitled to the\tsame
\nscale of pay. Medical officers holding the qualifications of
\nGCIM  or  the qualification of LIM or the  qualification  of
\nDiploma\t in  Ayurvedic Midicine (DAMO), being in  charge  of
\ndispensaries  run by Zilla Parishads were not treated  alike
\nas  the State Government had prescribed different scales  of
\npay  for. medical officers. On behalf of the aggrieved\tDoc-
\ntors  it  was contended that the functions and\tduties\tdis-
\ncharged\t by the three class of doctors in  the\tdispensaries
\nrun  by Zilla Parishads were the same and  their  qualifica-
\ntions  were also similar and yet the State Government  prac-
\ntised  discrimination in prescribing different scale of\t pay
\nfor  them. This Court held that the principle of  equal\t pay
\nfor  equal work could not be invoked or applied in the\tarea
\nof professional services like medical practioners. The Court
\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Dealing\twith the first contention  we  would
\n\t      like to observe at the outset that the princi-
\n\t      ple of equal work cannot be invoked or applied
\n\t      invariably  in every kind of service and\tcer-
\n\t      tainly  it  cannot be invoked in the  area  of
\n\t      professional  service  when these\t are  to  be
\n\t      compensated.  Dressing of any injury or  wound
\n\t      is  done\tboth by a doctor as well as  a\tcom-
\n\t      pounder,\tbut  surely it cannot  be  suggested
\n\t      that  for\t doing this job a doctor  cannot  be
\n\t      compensated more than the compounder. Similar-
\n\t      ly, a case in Court of law is argued both by a
\n\t      senior  and a junior lawyer, but it is  diffi-
\n\t      cult to accept that in matter of\tremuneration
\n\t      both  should  be treated equally. It  is\tthus
\n\t      clear  that in the field of rendering  profes-
\n\t      sional  services at any rate the principle  of
\n\t      equal  pay for equal work would be  inapplica-
\n\t      ble.  In\tthe instant  case  Medical  officers
\n\t      holding  the  qualification of  GCIM,  or
\n\t      the qualification of LIM or the  qualification
\n\t      of  DAM, though in charge of dispensaries\t run
\n\t      by Zilla Parishads cannot therefore, be treat-
\n\t      ed  on  par with each other and if  the  State
\n\t      Government  or the Zilla\tParishads  prescribe
\n\t      different\t scales of pay for each category  of
\n\t      Medical officers no fault could be found\twith
\n\t      such prescription.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    We\tfully agree with the above observations and  accord-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ingly  we  hold that in the instant case since\tthe  Hearing
\nTherapist and
\n969<\/span>
\nAudiologist  both render professional services and there  is
\nqualitative  difference\t between  the two on  the  basis  of
\neducational  qualification  the principle of equal  pay\t for
\nequal work cannot be invoked or applied. The Pay  Commission
\nconsidered  the\t case of Hearing Therapists and it  did\t not
\naccept their claim for higher scale of pay. The Pay  Commis-
\nsion  was in a better position to judge the volume of  work,
\nqualitative  difference and reliability\t and  responsibility
\nrequired  for the two posts. The Pay Commission made  recom-
\nmendations  for\t pay scales on the basis of  value  judgment
\nwhich  has an intelligible criteria on the basis  of  educa-
\ntional qualifications. The scant material placed before\t the
\nCourt by the petitioner, is not sufficient to hold that\t the
\nrecommendations\t of Pay Commission are without any  rational
\nbasis or that it permits discrimination.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioner’s contention that Speech Therapists\thave
\nbeen  granted  higher scale of pay  in\tother  Institutions,
\nnamely,\t Rohtak\t Medical  College,  National  Institute\t for
\nHearing\t Handicapped,  Hyderabad, Safdarjang  Hospital,\t and
\nP.G.I. Chandigarh cannot be taken into consideration as\t the
\npetitioner  has\t failed to place any  material\tshowing\t the
\nduties\tand functions performed by the Speech  Therapist  in
\nthe aforesaid Institutions or the qualifications  prescribed
\nfor  the same. Merely because Speech  Therapists  performing
\nsimilar duties and functions in other Institutions are\tpaid
\nhigher\tpay scale is no good ground to accept the  petition-
\ner’s claim for equal pay. There may be difference in  educa-
\ntional\tqualifications, quality and volume of work  required
\nto be performed by the Hearing Therapists in other  Institu-
\ntions.\tIn  the absence of any material\t placed\t before\t the
\nCourt  it is not possible to record findings that the  peti-
\ntioner\tis  denied  equality before law.  Moreover,  if\t the
\nemployer  is  not the same the principle of ‘Equal  Pay\t for
\nEqual  Work’ would not be applicable. We do not consider  it
\nnecessary  to discuss the matter further as  the  petitioner
\nhas  not placed requisite material before the Court for\t the
\napplication of the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’.
\n    In\tview of the above discussion we are of\tthe  opinion
\nthat  the  petitioner  has failed to  demonstrate  that\t any
\ndiscrimination has been practised against him in the  matter
\nrelating  to pay, therefore the question of  application  of
\nthe  principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ does not  arise
\nand the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The  peti-
\ntion fails and is accordingly dismissed but there will be no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Petition\tdis-\nmissed.\n970<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical … on 9 March, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1256, 1989 SCR (1) 957 Author: K Singh Bench: Singh, K.N. (J) PETITIONER: MEWA RAM KANOJIA Vs. RESPONDENT: ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/03\/1989 BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-238543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical ... on 9 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical ... on 9 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-02T23:08:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical … on 9 March, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-02T23:08:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989\"},\"wordCount\":4187,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989\",\"name\":\"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical ... on 9 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-02T23:08:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical … on 9 March, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical ... on 9 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical ... on 9 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-02T23:08:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical … on 9 March, 1989","datePublished":"1989-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-02T23:08:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989"},"wordCount":4187,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989","name":"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical ... on 9 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-02T23:08:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mewa-ram-kanojia-vs-all-india-institute-of-medical-on-9-march-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical … on 9 March, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238543","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=238543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}