Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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.               

 

Latest Legal News