Allopathy Doctors And Ayurved Doctors Do Not Perform Equal Work And Are Not Entitled To Equal Pay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, held that Allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine cannot be said to be performing equal work so as to be entitled to equal pay.

The Apex Court noted that 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. It further noted that it is not possible for Ayurved doctors to assist surgeons performing complicated surgeries, while MBBS doctors can do the same. In this regard, the Court clarified,“We shall not be understood to mean as though one system of medicine is superior to the other. It is not our mandate nor within our competence to assess the relative merits of these two systems of medical sciences.”

It added -

“Therefore, we have no doubt that every alternative system of medicine may have its pride of place in history. But today, the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine do not perform complicated surgical operations. A study of Ayurved does not authorise them to perform these surgeries.”

The Court noted that presence of Ayurved doctors is not required in a post-mortem or autopsy; during out-patient days (OPD) in general hospitals in cities/towns, MBBS doctors are made to attend to hundreds of patients, which is not the case with Ayurved doctors.

A Bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal set aside the Gujarat High Court order holding that practitioners possessing a degree of Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery are to be treated at par with doctors holding MBBS degrees and are entitled to the benefits of the recommendation of the Tikku Pay Commission.

Factual Background

On the basis of a Memorandum of Settlement signed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Joint Action Council of Service Doctors Organisation, a high power committee was constituted in 1990 with RK Tikku as the Chairperson. The purpose for the same was to improve the prospects of doctors in Government service. The committee submitted its report on 31.10.1990. The recommendation was limited to the service doctors holding MBBS degrees; postgraduate medical degrees; super-speciality degrees; and those on the teaching and non-teaching sides. On 19.11.1990, the Ministry constituted another committee with RK Tikku as the Chairperson for career improvement and cadre restructuring of the practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy. The committee submitted its report on 26.02.1991 and the scope was limited to practitioners holding degrees in Ayurved, Siddha, Homeopathy. By Office Memo dated 14.11.1991, the Union Government accepted the report dated 31.10.1990 with respect to allopathic doctors. The State of Gujarat also accepted the same and issued a resolution on 17.10.1994. In 1998, the Local Fund Audit, Ahmedabad sought clarifications from the State Government, whether the same benefits are available to non-MBBS medical practitioners holding degrees such as G.A.F.M/LMP. In 1999, the State Health and Family Welfare Department responded in the affirmative. It clarified that the recommendations of the Tikku Committee were also extended to doctors working under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. The respondents who were originally appointed on adhoc basis, under the ‘Community Health Volunteer Medical Officers Scheme’ of the Union Government and who were later absorbed by the State of Gujarat in May, 1991, filed writ petitions before the Gujarat High Court seeking extension of the benefit of higher scales of pay on the basis of the recommendations of Tikku Pay Commission. The Singh Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions. The State Government filed an appeal before the Division Bench. While the appeal was pending, the Gujarat Government withdrew its 1999 resolution. The Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge -

1. both MBBS and non-MBBS doctors form part of the same cadre and hence no discrimination is permissible within the cadre on the basis of educational qualifications;
2. non-MBBS doctors were also discharging the same duties and functions discharged by MBBS doctors and were even manning primary health centres independently and that therefore they were entitled to equal pay.

While granting leave in the Special Leave Petition on 08.09.2014, the Supreme Court had asked the State Government to comply with the order of the High Court upto 50% within two months, leaving the consideration of the other 50% upon the final adjudication of the SLP. In 2016 contempt petitions were filed alleging non-compliance with the interim order, which were disposed of on the basis of an assurance given by the State Government. Again, in 2017, the contempt petitions were filed alleging wilful disobedience of the interim order.

Issues before the Supreme Court

(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”?

Analysis by the Supreme Court

The Court noted that the first issue is no longer res integra. Referring to the relevant decisions of the Apex Court in this regard, the Court observed that classification based on educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

With respect to the second issue, it held that allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine cannot be said to be performing “equal work” so as to be entitled to “equal pay”.

Case details

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| Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment