1. Dispute regarding whether doctors with degrees in alternative systems of medicine are entitled to pay scale parity with allopathic doctors under a pay commission. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 415
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
State of Gujarat & Ors. etc. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. P.A. Bhatt & Ors. etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8553-8557 of 2014 with Contempt Petition (C) No.701 of 2017 in C.A. No. 8556 of 2014 @ C.A. Nos.8553-8557 of 2014, Contempt Petition (C) No.674 of 2017 in C.A. No.8555 of 2014 @ CA Nos. 8553-8557 of 2014, Contempt Petition (C) No.916 of 2017 in C.A. No.8557 of 2014 @ CA Nos.8553-8557 of 2014
Decided On : 26-04-2023
Important Points
Classification based on educational qualifications for pay scales is valid under Articles 14 and 16. Allopathy and AYUSH doctors do not perform 'equal work' due to differing duties, such as emergency care and surgery, and are therefore not entitled to equal pay.
Subject
Service Law - Pay Parity
Act Referred
Headnote
Equal Pay - Medical Practitioners - Memorandum of Settlement dated 21.08.1989, Office Memorandum dated 14.11.1991, Government Resolution No.GHS/1094/2842/T dated 17.10.1994, Government Resolution bearing No.KRV/1098/726/CH dated 01.01.1999 - The court considered whether doctors possessing a degree in alternative systems of medicine (BAMS) should be treated at par with doctors holding MBBS degrees and entitled to the benefits of the recommendations of the Tikku Pay Commission. FACT OF THE CASE The respondents, possessing a BAMS degree, sought extension of higher scales of pay based on the recommendations of the Tikku Pay Commission through writ petitions filed in the High Court of Gujarat. FINDING OF THE COURT The court held that different scales of pay can be fixed for officers appointed to the same cadre based on their educational qualifications and that Allopathy doctors and practitioners of alternative systems of medicine were not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay. ISSUES The issues involved whether different scales of pay could be fixed based on educational qualifications and whether Allopathy doctors and practitioners of alternative systems of medicine were performing "equal work" so as to be entitled to "equal pay." RATIO DECIDENDI The court relied on various decisions including State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao, Dr. C. Girijambal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, State of Haryana v. Ram Chander, and Director of Elementary Education, Odisha v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo to establish that classification based upon educational qualification for granting higher pay scale is valid. FINAL DECISION The appeals were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Nirav K Majmudar, Adv. Mr. Priank Adhyaru, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Kusum Chaudhary, AOR
For the Parties : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Nirav K Majmudar, Adv. Mr. Priank Adhyaru, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Kusum Chaudhary, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether educational qualifications within a unified cadre justify different pay scales and whether practitioners of allopathy and alternative medicine perform equal work. (Para 21 , 22 )
3. Classification based on educational qualifications is permissible; allopathic and alternative medicine practitioners perform distinct duties, including emergency care and surgery, precluding equal pay claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 )
4. Classification based on educational qualifications is valid under Articles 14 and 16; equal pay requires performing equal work, which differs between allopathic and alternative medicine. (Para 37 , 54 )
5. Appeals allowed, High Court order set aside, and benefits granted via interim order are to be recovered. (Para 55 , 56 )
6. Can the State fix different pay scales for employees in the same cadre based on their educational qualifications?
Yes, classification based on educational qualifications for the grant of higher pay scales is a valid classification and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 27 , 28 , 31 , 33 , 36 , 37 )
7. Does the principle of equal pay for equal work apply invariably to professional services?
No, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked invariably in professional services, where compensation may vary based on qualifications and the nature of professional duties. (Para 28 )
8. Are practitioners of alternative systems of medicine performing equal work to allopathic doctors for the purpose of pay parity?
No, they do not perform equal work as allopathic doctors handle emergency duties, trauma care, surgeries, and post-mortems, which practitioners of alternative systems are generally not authorized or required to perform. (Para 41 , 43 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 54 )
JUDGMENT
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. These civil appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, holding that the respondents possessing a degree of BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery) should be treated at par with the doctors holding MBBS degrees and that they are entitled to the benefits of the recommendations of the Tikku Pay Commission.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. On the basis of a Memorandum of Settlement dated 21.08.1989 entered into by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare with the Joint Action Council of Service Doctors Organisation, a High-Power Committee was constituted on 03.05.1990 with Shri R.K. Tikku as its Chairman, for the purpose of improving the service conditions and prospects of the doctors in Government service.
4. This Committee held 30 meetings during the period from June-1990 to October-1990 and submitted its recommendations under a Report dated 31.10.1990. The recommendations contained in this Report was confined only to service doctors holding MBBS degrees and post-graduate medical degrees and degrees in super-specialities and those on the teaching and non-teaching sides.
5. By a separate order dated 19.11.1990, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare constituted another High-Power Committee under the chairmanship of the very same person, namely, Shri R.K. Tikku, for the purpose of considering the career improvement and cadre restructuring of the practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy. This Committee submitted a separate Report on 26.02.1991 and it was confined to practitioners of alternative Systems of Medicine, holding degrees in Ayurved/Unani/Siddha/Homeopathy.
6. The Government of India accepted the recommendations of the Tikku Committee dated 31.10.1990, in respect of allopathic doctors by Office Memorandum dated 14.11.1991. The State of Gujarat also accepted the recommendations of the Tikku Committee for allopathic doctors and issued an order in Resolution No.GHS/1094/2842/T dated 17.10.1994. It was stated in the said order dated 17.10.1994 that adequate number of allopathic doctors was not available in the State and that therefore, it was necessary to attract talent.
7. After the implementation of the recommendations of the Tikku Committee dated 31.10.1990 in respect of allopathic doctors, in the State of Gujarat by the Government Resolution dated 17.10.1994, the Local Fund Audit, Ahmedabad sought clarifications, vide letters dated 04.03.1998 and 21.04.1998, as to whether the same benefits are available to non-MBBS medical officers holding qualifications such as G.A.F.M/LMP.
8. In response, the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Gujarat issued a Government Resolution bearing No.KRV/1098/726/CH dated 01.01.1999, holding that non-MBBS medical officers are also entitled to the benefit. Incidentally this letter stated that the recommendations of the Tikku Committee were extended even to doctors working under the Employees State Insurance Scheme, vide Government Resolution dated 01.07.1997.
9. The respondents herein who were originally appointed on adhoc basis, under the ‘Community Health Volunteer Medical Officers Scheme’ floated by the Government of India and who were later absorbed by the State of Gujarat in May- 1999, filed 4 writ petitions on the file of the High Court of Gujarat seeking extension of the benefit of higher scales of pay on the basis of the recommendations of Tikku Pay Commission. A separate writ petition was filed by the Medical Officers (Ayurved) Association, comprising of persons initially appointed as Medical Officers Class-III. The relief sought by this Association was similar to the one sought in the batch of four writ petitions.
10. By a common order dated 26.07.2012, a learned Judge of the High Court allowed all the writ petitions, holding that doctors having degrees in altern
