2021 Supreme(SC) 428

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation – Appellant
VERSUS
Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No). 10156 of 2019) with Civil Appeal No. 4579 of 2021 (@SLP(C) No. 10159 of 2019) Civil Appeal No. 4580 of 2021 (@SLP(C) No. 10160 of 2019) Civil Appeal No. 4581 of 2021 (@ SLP(C) No. 10928 of 2019) Civil Appeal No. 4582 of 2021 (@SLP(C) No. 10925 of 2019) Civil Appeal No. 4583 of 2021 (@SLP(C) No. 12046 of 2019) Civil Appeal No. 4584 of 2021 (@SLP(C) No. 19288 of 2019) Civil Appeal No. 4585 of 2021 (@SLP(C) No. 19287 of 2019) Civil Appeal No. 4586 of 2021 (@SLP(C) No. 24693 of 2019)
Decided on : 03-08-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) ‘No work should go unpaid’ should be appropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases where service rendered by respondent doctors have been productive both for patients and also employer.
(2) Doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients – No rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors.
(3) Mode of treatment by itself under prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Salary – No work should go unpaid – Respondent doctors have continuously served in hospitals till attaining enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 65 years vide AYUSH Ministry order dated 24.11.2017 and by virtue of interim order of High Court dated 26.09.2017 – They have been productive not only for patients but also for their employers – Interim order of Delhi High Court dated 26.09.2017 cannot be basis to deny salary and arrear benefits to respondents – Said interim order merged with final judgment dated 15.11.2018 and all consequential benefits of employment were due to respondents – When respondents worked and served patients, basic benefit of salary cannot be denied to doctors in light of principle ‘Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit’ – For almost 5 years, respondent doctors have been providing service to countless patients, without remuneration or benefits – Their services are utilized by employer in Government establishments, without demur – Principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ protects employers from paying their employees if they don’t receive service from them – ‘No work should go unpaid’ should be appropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases where service rendered by respondent doctors have been productive both for patients and also employer – Respondents must be paid their lawful remuneration-arrears and current, as the case may be – State cannot be allowed plead financial burden to deny salary for legally serving doctors – Otherwise it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of Constitution – Appellant’s actions in not paying respondent doctors their due salary and benefits, while their counterparts in CHS system received salary and benefits in full, must be seen as discriminatory – Respondent-doctors are entitled to their full salary arrears and same is ordered to be disbursed, within 8 weeks from today – Belated payment beyond stipulated period will carry interest, at the rate of 6% from date of this order until date of payment. (Paras 15, 17, 20, 21 and 24)

(B) Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them – No rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors – Classification is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing same function of treating and healing their patients – Only difference is that AYUSH doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using Allopathy for tending to their patients – Mode of treatment by itself under prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia – Such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of Constitution – Order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 extending age of superannuation to 65 Years also endorses such a view – This extension is in tune with notification of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 31.05.2016 – Order of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D. 14019/4/2016EI (AYUSH)) dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent-doctors, in present appeals – All consequences must follow from this conclusion. (Paras 22 and 23)

Facts of the case:

Entitlement of respondents to continue in service upto 65 years and receive due remuneration for the same is the only issue to be considered in these cases. Present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the Court upheld the common final order dated 24.08.2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench and dismissed petitions filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation. The Tribunal declared that the applicants who are Ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH are also entitled to benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), just like the allopathic doctors.

Findings of Court:

There is sufficient evidence on record to suggest that the respondent-doctor through several representations sought to be reappointed but it was employer who created impediments and did not allow respondent to rejoin his duties in hospitals. In such circumstances, principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ cannot be raised by the employers, as it is they who had obstructed the doctor from discharging his service.

Result : Appeals allowed.