Back
B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
State of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Tiwari – Respondent
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
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.
Point of Law : Fixing pay scales by Courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high Constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State....
Point of Law : A mere direction of Supreme Court without laying down any principle of law is not a precedent - It is only where Supreme Court lays down a principle of law that it will amount to a pre....
The court emphasizes the principle of equal treatment and directs the State Government to consider increasing stipend for PG students in Ayurveda in line with previous judgment and recommendation.
PG students in Ayurveda are entitled to equal stipends as those in Allopathy, and the State must consider representations based on prior judgments and recommendations.
The principle of parity in remuneration requires factual evidence of equal work, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Respondents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
