Case Title: State of Gujarat And Ors. Etc. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt And Ors. Etc.| 2023 Livelaw SC 350 | Civil Appeal Nos. 8553-8557 of 2014| 26th April, 2023|
Summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that Allopathy doctors and indigenous medicine doctors are not entitled to equal pay due to their different medical systems. Ayurveda doctors are incapable of providing emergency duty and trauma care, while Allopathy doctors are capable of providing complex surgeries. The court also noted that the presence of Ayurved doctors is not necessary during post-mortem or autopsy, as MBBS doctors are required to attend to hundreds of patients during out-patient days (OPD).
The Gujarat High Court order that practitioners with a Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery degree be treated equally with doctors with MBBS degrees was overturned by a Bench consisting of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal. The State Government has been criticized for not providing equal benefits to non-MBBS medical practitioners who hold degrees in Ayurved, Siddha, and Homeopathy.
The Supreme Court requested that the State Government comply with the High Court’s order for up to 50% within two months when it granted leave in the Special Leave Petition on 08.09.2014. Contempt petitions were submitted in 2016, 2016, and 2017, alleging noncompliance with the interim order.
The court concluded that classification based on educational qualification does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and allopathy and indigenous medicine physicians are not considered to be conducting “equal work” to be entitled to “equal pay.”
About the case
The Supreme Court ruled that Allopathy doctors and indigenous medicine doctors are not conducting equivalent work and therefore are not entitled to equal pay.
The Apex Court observed that Ayurved doctors are incapable of conducting the emergency duty and trauma care that Allopathy doctors are capable of providing. It was also observed that Ayurved doctors are unable to provide assistance to surgeons who are conducting complex surgeries, whereas MBBS doctors are capable of doing so. In this regard, the Court clarified, “We shall not be interpreted as implying that one system of medicine is preferable to the other… Assessing the relative merits of these two medical science systems is neither within our mandate nor within our competence. It further stated, “Consequently, we are confident that each alternative medical system will have its own unique place in history.” However, contemporary indigenous medical practitioners refrain from conducting intricate surgical procedures. They are not authorized to conduct these surgeries based on an examination of Ayurved.
The Court observed that the presence of Ayurved doctors is not necessary during a post-mortem or autopsy. During out-patient days (OPD) in general hospitals in cities/towns, MBBS doctors are required to attend to hundreds of patients, a situation that is not the case with Ayurveda doctors.
The Gujarat High Court order that practitioners with a Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery degree are to be treated equally with doctors with MBBS degrees and are entitled to the benefits of the Tikku Pay Commission recommendation was overturned by a Bench consisting of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Upon the signing of a Memorandum of Settlement by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Joint Action Council of Service Doctors Organization in 1990, a high-power committee was established, with RK Tikku serving as the Chairperson. The objective was to enhance the employment opportunities for physicians in the government. On 31.10.1990, the committee submitted its report. The recommendation was restricted to service physicians who possess MBBS degrees, postgraduate medical degrees, super-speciality degrees, and both teaching and non-teaching roles. The Ministry established an additional committee on 19.11.1990, with RK Tikku serving as the Chairperson, to facilitate the career development and cadre restructuring of practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy. The committee’s report was submitted on 26.02.1991 and was restricted to practitioners who held degrees in Ayurved, Siddha, and Homeopathy. The Union Government accepted the report dated 31.10.1990 with respect to allopathic physicians by Office Memo dated 14.11.1991. The State of Gujarat also acknowledged the same and issued a resolution on 17.10.1994.
In 1998, the Local Fund Audit, Ahmedabad, requested clarification from the State Government regarding the availability of the same benefits to non-MBBS medical practitioners who hold degrees such as G.A.F.M/LMP. The State Health and Family Welfare Department responded affirmatively in 1999. It was clarified that the recommendations of the Tikku Committee were also applied to physicians employed under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. The respondents, who were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis under the ‘Community Health Volunteer Medical Officers Scheme’ of the Union Government and were subsequently absorbed by the State of Gujarat in May 1991, filed writ petitions before the Gujarat High Court. Their petitions sought to extend the benefit of higher pay scales in accordance with the recommendations of the Tikku Pay Commission. The writ petitions were granted by the Singh Judge of the High Court. The Division Bench received an appeal from the State Government. The Gujarat Government rescinded its 1999 resolution while the appeal was pending. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order, which stated that both MBBS and non-MBBS doctors are members of the same cadre and, as a result, there is no permissible discrimination within the cadre based on educational qualifications. Additionally, non-MBBS doctors were performing the same duties and functions as MBBS doctors, and they were even independently manning primary health centers. Consequently, they were entitled to equal pay.
The Supreme Court requested that the State Government comply with the High Court’s order for up to 50% within two months when it granted leave in the Special Leave Petition on 08.09.2014. The remaining 50% will be considered upon the ultimate adjudication of the SLP. In 2016, contempt petitions were submitted, alleging noncompliance with the interim order. These petitions were dismissed on the premise of an assurance provided by the State Government. The contempt petitions were once again submitted in 2017, this time alleging the wilful disobedience of the interim order.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled that a criminal proceeding by the “real” owner of a benami property is also improper, as a civil suit to enforce a claim is prohibited.
(i) Is it possible to establish distinct pay schedules for officers who are appointed to the same cadre based on their educational qualifications?
(ii) Is it possible to assert that Allopathy doctors and indigenous medicine doctors are conducting “equal work” in order to be entitled to “equal pay”?
The Supreme Court’s assessment
The Court observed that the initial matter is no longer a matter of res integra. The Court observed that classification based on educational qualification does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, citing the pertinent decisions of the Apex Court.
In regard to the second issue, it was determined that allopathy physicians and indigenous medicine physicians are not considered to be conducting “equal work” in order to be entitled to “equal pay.”
