IMPORTANT POINT
Pay scale – Nature of duties discharged by Post Graduate students in Ayurveda stream is not the same as that of Post Graduate students undertaking therein education in Allopathy stream.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant-State challenges the judgment and order dated 19th November 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the Writ Petition No. 6415 of 2015 filed by the respondents was allowed.

3. The said writ petition was filed by the students who were pursuing their Master’s Degree Course in Ayurveda from Autonomous Ayurveda College. It was the contention of the petitioners therein (respondents herein) before the High Court that though the duties discharged by them were same as compared to the duties discharged by the Post Graduate students belonging to the Allopathy stream, they were discriminated against in the matter of stipend.

4. The said writ petition came to be contested by the State on various grounds. However, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court observed that the State had failed to establish that the students pursuing Post Graduate course in Ayurveda are of different class than that of students pursuing Post Graduate course in Allopathy. It was, therefore, found that the State was indulging in a discriminatory practice. A mandamus was, therefore, issued to the State to treat the students pursuing Post Graduate in Ayurveda stream at par with the students pursuing Post Graduate Course in Allopathy stream.

5. We have heard Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr. Sandeep S. Tiwari, appearing for the respondents.

6. Mr. Mishra submits that the issue is no more res integra. This Court, in the case of State of Gujarat and Others vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 503 has held that the duties discharged by the Post Graduate students in Ayurveda stream cannot be equated with the duties discharged by the Post Graduate students in Allopathy stream.

7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the stand taken by the State before the High Court was found to be not tenable and as such, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order.

8. This Court, in the case of Dr. P.A. Bhatt (supra), has framed the following two questions:

“24. Two questions, in our opinion, arise for consideration in these appeals. They are:

(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”?”

9. After comparing the nature of duties discharged by the Post Graduate students in the Allopathy as well as in the Ayurveda streams, this Court in the said case, observed as under:

“40. The Government filed an affidavit before the High Court contending inter-alia

(i) that while General Hospitals and Government Hospitals come under the Medical Services Department, PHCs, CHCs and Government dispensaries come under the Public Health Department.

(ii) that in respect of medical services, doctors with MD/MS or postgraduate degree/diploma are appointed to Class-I specialist cadre.

(iii) that Homeopathy doctors are appointed to Class-III posts.

(iv) that Ayurved doctors are appointed to Class-II posts.

(v) that there are lot of differences between the duties and responsibilities discharged by both these categories of doctors.

41. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed on 23.07.2013, on behalf of the Government before the Division Bench of the High Court, a comparative chart was provided. It reads as follows: