Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
Dr. Ram Suresh Rai And 28 Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. Thru Secy. Health And Family Welfare Nirman, N. Delhi and Ors - Respondent
Writ A. No. 23479 Of 2019
Decided On : 19-10-2022
The petitioners are qualified AYUSH Doctors working in the National Health Mission Scheme and were aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting their representation for being granted equivalent honorarium as is being given to the Allopathic doctors. The court allowed the writ petition and held that AYUSH doctors should be treated at par with Allopathic doctors and are entitled to the same honorarium. The court found that the classification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under Central Health Service in different categories is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients. The court noted that the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things does not qualify as an intelligible differentia. Therefore, such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The court further observed that the doctors, both under AYUSH and Central Health Service, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors. The court directed that the Special ACP Scheme (SACP) implemented vide Government Order dated 14 November 2014, shall be applicable to the Medical Officers of other streams also.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, alongwith Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Union of India and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of National Health Mission.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are Ayush doctors who are working in the NHRM Scheme and are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.03.2019, passed by the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow thereby rejecting their representation for being granted equivalent honorarium as is being given to the Allopathic doctors.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are qualified AYUSH Doctors and were engaged as such and were posted in different districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh and their services were renewed from time to time and are currently serving as contractual employees. The Union of India recognizing the importance of health in the process of economic and social development and improving the quality of life of its citizens resolved to launch the National Health Mission Scheme to carry out necessary aid in the basic health case delivery system.
4. An advertisement was issued for appointment on various posts in all the districts including the post of Medical Officer Allopathic, BDS Doctors as well as AYUSH Doctors. Till the year 2009-10, honorarium for all the above-mentioned doctors was proposed to be Rs.24,000/- per month but later on in 2010-11, the honorarium of Medical Officers Allopathic was increased to Rs.30,000/- per month. Similarly, for the year 2011-12, the honorarium of the Medical Officers Allopathic was increased to Rs.36,000/- per month for rural posting and Rs.33,000/- per month for urban posting and honorarium of Medical Officers BDS was increased to Rs.35,000/- per month for rural posting and Rs.30,000/- per month for urban posting. The honorarium of Ayush Doctors was not revised and renewal of Ayush Doctors was denied and aggrieved by the order, not renewing the period of Ayush Doctors, they challenged the action before this Court and Court while disposing the Writ Petition No. 769 (S/B) of 2011, directed the respondents to continue their services till the scheme continues and be paid accordingly.
5. The State Government assailed the order passed by the writ Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28122 of 2011, which was dismissed on 18.10.2011 and in compliance of the order of the Court the services of Ayush doctors were continued and renewed but the honorarium remained Rs.24,000/- per month.
6. The claim of the AYUSH Doctors for equal honorarium was further raised in Writ Petition No. 295 (S/B) of 2013 - Anil Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, which was disposed of by this Court by means of order dated 01.03.2013, with direction to the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, U.P. to take decision in this regard and the Principal Secretary took the decision in the matter vide order dated 04.09.2013, whereby the representation was rejected on the ground that honorarium was to be fixed in terms of the operational guidelines/record of proceedings and in the said terms the Government of India had approved honorarium only Rs.24,000/- per month.
7. The claim of the petitioners to be treated at par with the Allopathic Doctors has been rejected by the State Government on the following ground :
(ii) their services are limited for their work up to six hours and
(iii) they are not given any medico legal work."
8. The aforesaid order has been passed considering various directions issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5633 (S/S) o
The classification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under Central Health Service in different categories is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same funct....
The denial of S.A.C.P. benefits to doctors under the Employees State Insurance Scheme violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as they perform the same duties as their counterparts in the Provincial ....
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between regular AYUSH Medical Officers appointed in sanctioned posts and contract AYUSH Medical Officers appointed under a special ....
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
