Rajiv Sharma, J.

The petitioners were appointed as Medical Officers “Ayush” on the contract basis during the year 2010 to 2013 under “National Rural Health Mission” (hereinafter referred to as “NRHM” for the sake of brevity). The NRHM was started by Government of India in the year 2005 for the purpose of Healthcare, more particularly, in rural areas. The 85% expenses are borne by the Central Government and 15% by the State Government.

2. According to the preamble of NRHM scheme, it is meant to develop and improve the quality of life of citizens and to adopt a synergistic approach by relating health to indica of good health viz. segments of nutrition, sanitation, hygiene and safe drinking water. It also aims at main streaming the Indian System of Medicine to facilitate health care. The overall goal of the Mission is to improve the availability of access to quality health care by people especially for those residing in rural areas, the poor, women and children. In fact, it provides effective health care to rural population throughout the country with special focus on 18 States including State of Uttarakhand.

3. The petitioners were appointed in Rastriya Bal Swasthaya Karyakram (RBSK) run by the NRHM. The State Government has also employed Allopathic, Dental, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Officers under NRHM on contract basis. The Allopathic and Dental Doctors were given consolidated salary of Rs.48,000/-, Rs.52,000/- and Rs.56,000/- for Sugam, Durgam and Ati-durgam places respectively. The petitioners were paid only Rs.36,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.44,000/- for Sugam, Durgam and Ati-durgam places respectively. There were 82 Ayurvedic and 18 Homeopathic Medical Officers appointed on contract basis under NRHM. 296 Ayurvedic Medical Officers were also appointed on contract basis under RBSK. Initially there was no difference in the salary between Allopathic Medical Officers and Ayurvedic Medical Officers as per advertisement issued in the year 2010. The petitioners have made several representations seeking parity of salary with their counter-parts working as Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers.

4. The case of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground that they are working on contractual basis and thus, they are not entitled to the parity with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers. The petitioners are discharging the same duties which are being discharged by the Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers.

5. The underlying principles of NRHM is to provide basic health facilities to the citizen of the State, more particularly, of rural areas. The petitioners have obtained their degrees from recognized institutions. They have also taken 4-5 years course. It is for the patient to opt for any of the system i.e. Allopathic or Ayurvedic or Homeopathic.

6. There is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Officers viz-a-viz Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers. There is no rational why the similar situate persons have been discriminated against. The petitioners as well as Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers constitute homogenous class.

7. Homeopathy, Ayurved and Allopathy are different streams of Medicines, yet these have to be treated at par with each other. The nature of degrees and duration of courses are almost the same. There is also discrimination by paying Rs.10,000/- extra to the Doctors working in Community Health Centres and Primary Health Centres. The petitioners are working in rural areas. They cannot be discriminated against only on the ground that they are not serving in Community Health Centres and Primary Health Centres.

8. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1987) 4 SCC 634 in the case of Bhagwan Dass and others Vs. State of Haryana and others have held that if duties and functions of temporary appointees and employees of regular cadre in the same government department are similar, there cannot be d