2024 INSC 25
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2024
[Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.105 of 2024]
Diary No.20723 of 2021]
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
VIJAY KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted. 2. The appellantState challenges the judgment and order dated 19th November 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the Writ Petition No. 6415 of 2015 filed by the respondents was allowed. 3. The said writ petition was filed by the students who were pursuing their Master’s Degree Course in Ayurveda from Autonomous Ayurveda College. It was the contention of the petitioners therein (respondents herein) before the High Court that though the duties discharged by them were same as compared to the duties discharged by the Post Graduate students belonging to the Allopathy stream, they were discriminated against in the matter of stipend. 4. The said writ petition came to be contested by the State on various grounds. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court observed that the State had failed to establish that the students pursuing Post Graduate course in Ayurveda are of different class than that of students pursuing Post Graduate course in Allopathy. It was, therefore, found that the State was indulging in a discriminatory practice. A mandamus was, therefore, issued to the State to treat the students pursuing Post Graduate in Ayurveda stream at par with the students pursuing Post Graduate Course in Allopathy stream. 5. We have heard Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellantState and Mr. Sandeep S. Tiwari, appearing for the respondents. 6. Mr. Mishra submits that the issue is no more res integra. This Court, in the case of State of Gujarat and Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others1, has held that the
1 2023 SCC Online SC 503 duties discharged by the Post Graduate students in Ayurveda stream cannot be equated with the duties discharged by the Post Graduate students in Allopathy stream. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the stand taken by the State before the High Court was found to be not tenable and as such, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order. 8. This Court, in the case of Dr. P.A. Bhatt (supra), has framed the following two questions:
“24. Two questions, in our opinion, arise for consideration in these appeals. They are:
(i) Whether different scales of pay can be fixed for officers appointed to the same cadre, on the basis of educational qualifications possessed by them? (ii) Whether Allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine can be said to be performing “equal work” so as to be entitled to “equal pay”?”
9. After comparing the nature of duties discharged by the Post Graduate students in the Allopathy as well as in the Ayurveda streams, this Court in the said case, observed as under:
“40. The Government filed an affidavit before the
High Court contending inter alia
(i) that while General Hospitals and Government Hospitals come under the Medical Services Department, PHCs, CHCs and Government dispensaries come under the Public Health Department; (ii) that in respect of medical services, doctors with MD/MS or postgraduate degree/diploma are appointed to ClassI specialist cadre; (iii) that Homeopathy doctors are appointed to ClassIII posts; (iv) that Ayurved doctors are appointed to ClassII posts; and (v) that there are lot of differences between the duties and responsibilities discharged by both these categories of doctors.
41. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed on 23.07.2013, on behalf of the Government before the Division Bench of the High Court, a comparative chart was provided. It reads as follows
Sr.
No.
Allopathy Doctors Ayurved Doctors
1.
MBBS/MD/P.G.
Degree/P.G.
Diploma/Specialization
BAMS/BHMS/MD
2.
Required to perform
emergency duties and
trauma cases, surgery
cases and post mortem
cases.
No emergency
duty, cannot
perform surgery
and post mortem
3.
Have to work in OPD
and operation theater
No operation work
4.
Give IV injections and
ART injections
themselves
Not applicable
5.
Medicines given are
allopathic. For eg: pain
killers
The medicine is
based on ayurved.
For eg: Powder to
be taken with
boiled water
6.
Main duty is with
respect to emergencies,
casualty and OPD
patients.
Main duty is to
advertise/make
people aware
about ayurvedic
treatment and
organizing camps
where different
vanaspati are
displayed.
7.
Nature of treatment
thus different from
ayurved.
Nature of
treatment is
totally different
from allopathy.
8.
Such doctors not easily
available
Available in plenty
9.
Therefore bond system
applicable for getting
service of at least 5
years in village
No such bond
system
10. Night duty No Night Duty
42. Apart from the above comparative chart, the learned Government Pleader also placed before the High Court, another comparative chart showing the various characteristics of Ayurvedic medicine and Allopathic medicine. The High Court extracted the said comparative chart in paragraph 5 of the impugned order. But unfortunately, the said chart is of no assistance to find out whether both these categories of doctors are performing the same or similar duties and responsibilities, to be entitled to claim equal pay. The comparative chart extracted in paragraph 5 of the impugned order merely shows what these two categories of doctors “can do” and the different approaches that the different systems of medicine have towards persons suffering from various illnesses. But an appreciation of these characteristics will not empower the Court to direct the Government to treat both categories of doctors on par. Taking into consideration a comparative chart relating to the characteristics of both these types of medicine and not taking into consideration the comparative chart which we have extracted in paragraph 41 above, was the first mistake committed by the High Court in the impugned order.
43. As seen from paragraph 41 above, Allopathy doctors are required to perform emergency duties and to provide trauma care. By the very nature of the science that they practice and with the advancement of science and modern medical technology, the emergency duty that Allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are capable of providing, cannot be performed by Ayurved doctors.”
10. After observing the aforesaid, this Court in the said case, observed as under:
“54. Therefore, even while recognizing the importance of Ayurved doctors and the need to promote alternative/indigenous systems of medicine, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay. Hence, Issue No.2 has to be answered in favour of the appellantState and against the respondents.”
11. Mr. Mishra further submitted that as a matter of fact, subsequently, there has been a revision of stipend paid to both the streams and as a matter of fact, there is not much of a difference in the stipend paid to the Post Graduate students in both the streams. 12. In view of the specific findings of this Court that the nature of duties discharged by the Post Graduate students in Ayurveda stream is not the same as that of Post Graduate students undertaking therein education in Allopathy stream, the impugned judgment and order would not be sustainable. 13. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 14. The impugned judgment and order is, therefore, quashed and set aside and the Writ Petition No. 6415 of 2015 filed by the petitioners therein (respondents herein) before the High Court stands dismissed.
……………………………………….J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
……………………………………….J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 02, 2024.