{"id":292552,"date":"2023-05-19T09:00:54","date_gmt":"2023-05-19T03:30:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=292552"},"modified":"2023-05-18T18:53:37","modified_gmt":"2023-05-18T13:23:37","slug":"supreme-court-denies-equal-treatment-of-mbbs-and-ayurved-allopathy-doctors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/19\/supreme-court-denies-equal-treatment-of-mbbs-and-ayurved-allopathy-doctors\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court| Allopathy\/ Ayurved Doctors not on a par with MBBS Doctors; Can\u2019t claim equal pay"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/b> In a Civil Appeal challenging the common order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, wherein, the High Court had held that the doctors having degrees in alternative systems of medicine are entitled to be treated on a par with doctors holding MBBS degree, the Division Bench led by V. Ramasubramanian<\/b>* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., set aside the impugned order holding that non-MBBS doctors do not perform equal work as compared to doctors with MBBS degree.<\/p>\n

In the instant case the respondents-petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis under the ‘Community Health Volunteer Medical Officers Scheme’ floated by Government of India and were later absorbed by the State of Gujarat in May 1999.<\/p>\n

The respondents-petitioners had approached the High Court seeking extension of higher pay scales benefits on a par with doctors holding MBBS degree. Reliance in this regard was placed on the Government Resolution dated 01-01-1999 issued by the Gujarat Government to extend the benefits recommended by the “Tikku Pay Commission” for allopathic doctors to non-MBBS medical officers as well.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h4>\n

Whether officers appointed to the same cadre can be offered different pay scales on the basis of educational qualifications?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

The Court while answering the said point analysed a number of judgments. In State of Mysore<\/i> v. P. Narasinga Rao<\/i>, (1968) 1 SCR 407<\/a>, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court discussed the classification of two grades of tracers i.e., one for matriculates with a higher pay scale and the other for non-matriculates with a lower pay scale, and it upheld this classification to be not violative of Articles 14<\/a> and 16<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In Dr. C. Girijambal<\/i> v. Government of Andhra Pradesh<\/i>, (1981) 2 SCC 155<\/a> the Supreme Court opined that in the field of rendering professional services at any rate the principle of equal pay for equal work would be inapplicable. In an another case of Mewa Ram Kanojia<\/i> v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences<\/i>, (1989) 2 SCC 235<\/a> <\/i>the Supreme Court had held that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, (1994) 2 SCC 521<\/a> said that the scale of pay may vary based on academic qualifications or experience whichever justifies the classification even though, the nature of work may be more or less the same. Therefore, the Court held that the classification based upon educational qualification is not violative of Article 14<\/a> and 16<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Whether allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine can be said to be performing “equal work” so as to be entitled to “equal pay”?.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that though, every alternative system of medicine may have its pride but, the practitioners of indigenous medicines do not perform complicated surgical operations as a study of ayurved does not authorise them to perform these surgeries.<\/p>\n

Though, the Court noted the importance of Ayurved doctors and need to promote alternative\/ indigenous systems of medicine however, it held that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work and hence, cannot be entitled to equal pay.<\/p>\n

Further, the Court while allowing to recover the benefits derived by the respondents by virtue of the interim order of the Court, held that it is a settled principle that benefit derived by an individual from an interim order of a Court cannot be allowed to be retained if the ultimate outcome of the case went against such a person.<\/p>\n

Hence, the Court allowed all the appeals and set aside the impugned order of the High Court.<\/p>\n

Judgment Pronounced By: Justice V. Ramasubramanian<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Justice V. Ramasubramanian<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n