Summary
The Gujarat High Court had directed that Medical Officers holding BAMS degrees be paid on par with MBBS doctors under the Tikku Pay Commission recommendations, reasoning that both belonged to one cadre and performed the same duties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that different pay scales within the same cadre may validly rest on educational qualifications, that allopathy and Ayurved doctors do not perform equal work since the latter do not handle emergencies, trauma, surgery, post-mortems or heavy OPD loads, and that North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma, which concerned retirement age, does not cover pay parity. Benefits received under the interim order were made recoverable.
Issues
- Whether the decision in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma, equating AYUSH and allopathy doctors for the age of superannuation, concludes the claim of AYUSH doctors to equal pay.
- Whether different scales of pay can be fixed for officers appointed to the same cadre on the basis of their educational qualifications.
- Whether allopathy doctors and practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine perform 'equal work' so as to be entitled to 'equal pay'.
- Whether benefits paid under the Supreme Court's interim order of 08.09.2014 may be recovered once the appeals succeed.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaClassification of employees in the same cadre on the basis of educational qualifications for pay purposes is a valid classification and does not offend Articles 14 and 16; the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply invariably, particularly in professional services. (¶¶ 27, 28, 31, 33, 36, 37)
- Sections 174(3) and 176(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Post-mortem examinations are to be conducted by a Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical man appointed by the State; AYUSH doctors are not normally notified as competent for this, illustrating the difference in duties. (¶¶ 50, 51)
- Class 'A' registration, Andhra Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Practitioners' Registration Act, 1956Referred to in Dr. C. Girijambal, where differing pay scales for medical officers with different indigenous qualifications were upheld; the High Court wrongly distinguished that decision. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30)
Held
- Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma turned on the AYUSH Ministry's own order extending the retirement age and did not decide whether AYUSH and allopathy doctors perform equal work; retirement age stands on a different footing from pay, so that decision does not cover the present claim. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- It is open to the State to classify employees in the same cadre on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities; even where the nature of work is broadly similar, pay may vary with academic qualifications, and the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked invariably in professional services. (¶¶ 27, 28, 31, 33, 36, 37)
- The decision in State of Haryana v. Ram Chander rested on the State having itself ignored the difference in qualifications by granting a uniform scale, and does not support parity here. (¶¶ 34, 35)
- Allopathy doctors perform emergency and trauma duties, surgery, operation-theatre and night duty, administer IV injections, conduct post-mortems and attend hundreds of OPD patients, which Ayurved doctors do not; without disparaging the historic achievements of indigenous medicine, the two categories do not perform equal work and are not entitled to equal pay. The High Court erred in relying on a chart of what each system 'can do' rather than the comparative chart of actual duties. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)
- A benefit derived under an interim order cannot be retained when the final outcome goes against the recipient; since some respondents received payments under the interim order and others did not, no classification among them is possible and the amounts are recoverable. (¶ 55)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court's order set aside and the writ petitions dismissed; benefits paid under the interim order of 08.09.2014 to be recovered. Contempt petitions and all interlocutory applications, including impleadment applications, dismissed. No costs.