The State Of M.P. vs. Vijay Kumar Tiwari

NON­REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 25 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.   17    OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.105   of 2024] Diary No.20723 of 2021] THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS            …APPELLANTS VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS     …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant­State challenges the judgment and order th dated 19   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 Signature Not Verified from Autonomous Ayurveda College. It was the contention of Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2024.01.08 15:48:34 IST Reason: the petitioners therein (respondents herein) before the High 1 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 appellant­State 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 1 Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others ,   has held that the 1 2023 SCC Online SC 503 2 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 3 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 Class­I specialist cadre; (iii)   that   Homeopathy   doctors   are appointed to Class­III posts; (iv) that Ayurved doctors are appointed to Class­II posts; and (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

4

Apart from the above comparative chart, the 42. learned Government Pleader also placed before the High Court, another comparative chart showing the various characteristics of Ayurvedic medicine and Allopathic medicine.  The High Court extracted the said   comparative   chart   in   paragraph   5   of   the impugned order.  But unfortunately, the said chart 5 is of no assistance to find out whether both these categories  of  doctors  are   performing   the   same   or similar duties and responsibilities, to be entitled to claim equal pay. The comparative chart extracted in paragraph 5 of the impugned order merely shows what these two categories of doctors “can do” and the different approaches that the different systems of   medicine   have   towards   persons   suffering   from various   illnesses.     But   an   appreciation   of   these characteristics will not empower the Court to direct the Government to treat both categories of doctors on par.   Taking into consideration a comparative chart relating to the characteristics of both these types of medicine and not taking into consideration the comparative chart which we have extracted in paragraph   41   above,   was   the   first   mistake committed   by   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned order. 43.   As  seen  from  paragraph  41  above,  Allopathy doctors are required to perform emergency duties and to provide trauma care.  By the very nature of the   science   that   they   practice   and   with   the advancement   of   science   and   modern   medical technology,   the   emergency   duty   that   Allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are capable of providing, cannot be performed by Ayurved doctors.” 10. After   observing   the   aforesaid,   this   Court   in   the   said case, observed as under: “ 54.   Therefore,   even   while   recognizing   the importance   of   Ayurved   doctors   and   the   need   to promote   alternative/indigenous   systems   of medicine, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that both   categories   of   doctors   are   certainly   not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay. Hence, Issue No.2 has to be answered in favour of the appellant­State and against the respondents.” 6 11. Mr. Mishra further submitted that as a matter of fact, subsequently, there has been a revision of stipend paid to both the streams and as a matter of fact, there is not much of   a   difference   in   the   stipend   paid   to   the   Post   Graduate students in both the streams. In view of the specific findings of this Court that the 12. nature of duties discharged by the Post Graduate students in Ayurveda stream is not the same as that of Post Graduate students undertaking therein education in Allopathy stream, the impugned judgment and order would not be sustainable. 13. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 14. The   impugned   judgment   and   order   is,   therefore, quashed and set aside and the Writ Petition No. 6415 of 2015   filed   by   the   petitioners   therein   (respondents   herein) before the High Court stands dismissed. ……………………………………….J. [B.R. GAVAI] ……………………………………….J. [SANDEEP MEHTA] NEW DELHI; JANUARY 02, 2024. 7