Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

NURSING ASSISTANTS NOT ENTITLED TO SAME ALLOWANCE AS STAFF NURSES BASED ON EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: SUPREME COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that Nursing Assistants cannot claim the same Nursing Allowance as Staff Nurses based on their educational qualifications. The decision came in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajib Khan & Ors., where the Court quashed the judgment of the High Court of Gauhati, which had allowed the original writ petitioners to receive Nursing Allowance at par with Staff Nurses.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, observed that the educational qualifications and duties of Nursing Assistants differ from those of Staff Nurses. The Court emphasized that Nursing Assistants lack the relevant experience and educational qualifications required for appointment as Staff Nurses. Consequently, the Court concluded that Nursing Assistants cannot be equated with Staff Nurses in terms of entitlement to the same Nursing Allowance.

The Court highlighted the High Court's error in holding that educational qualifications should not be a ground for denial of Nursing Allowance to Nursing Assistants. It referred to earlier judgments, including Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v. Balbir Kumar Walia and others, where it was held that different educational qualifications and experience can justify distinct pay scales or pay structures.

The Supreme Court's decision clarifies that the classification of Nursing Assistants and Staff Nurses for the purpose of allowances is based on their differing educational qualifications and duties. It further reinforces the principle that the determination of pay structure falls within the purview of the Executive and cannot be overturned by the judiciary.

The ruling will have implications for the healthcare sector and the remuneration of healthcare professionals. It underscores the importance of recognizing the variances in educational qualifications and experience when determining entitlement to allowances in similar job roles.

The Supreme Court's judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving different pay scales or allowances based on educational qualifications, experience, and the nature of duties in various sectors. It establishes the principle that equality in pay does not necessarily mean identical treatment for employees with distinct qualifications and responsibilities.

The decision serves as a reminder that the classification of pay scales should be based on objective criteria and reasonable differentiations. It also emphasizes the significance of considering the qualifications and experience required for specific roles while determining entitlements to financial benefits within an organization.

This landmark judgment will provide clarity and guidance to employers, employees, and the legal fraternity regarding the determination of pay structures and allowances based on educational qualifications and job responsibilities in India's workforce.

Date of Decision: January 16, 2023

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

 

Similar News