Supreme Court overturns High Court ruling on stipend parity for Ayurveda and Allopathy PG students: State of M.P. vs. Vijay Kumar Tiwari (2 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 2 January 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 25

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can students pursuing post-graduate degrees in Ayurveda expect the same stipend as their counterparts in Allopathy? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, overturning a High Court decision that had mandated equal stipends. This case revolves around a claim of discrimination, where Ayurveda students argued that their duties were equivalent to those of Allopathy students, thus warranting equal compensation. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, delivered the judgment, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by students pursuing Master’s degrees in Ayurveda from an Autonomous Ayurveda College. These students contended that despite performing duties similar to those of Post Graduate students in Allopathy, they were being discriminated against in the matter of stipend. The State of Madhya Pradesh contested this claim, arguing that the two streams of medicine are not comparable.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the Ayurveda students, stating that the State had failed to prove that the two groups of students belonged to different classes. Consequently, the High Court directed the State to treat Ayurveda students on par with Allopathy students in terms of stipend. Aggrieved by this decision, the State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legal issue revolves around the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” which is often invoked in cases of alleged discrimination in employment. The High Court’s decision was based on its assessment that the duties of Ayurveda and Allopathy students were similar, thus warranting equal stipend. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment relied on a previous case, State of Gujarat and Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others, which had examined the differences in duties between the two streams.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (State of M.P.):

• The State argued that the issue was no longer res integra, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Gujarat and Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others.
• The State contended that the duties discharged by Post Graduate students in Ayurveda cannot be equated with those of Post Graduate students in Allopathy.
• The State submitted that there has been a revision of stipend for both streams and there is not much difference in the stipend paid.

Arguments by the Respondents (Ayurveda Students):

• The respondents argued that the High Court had correctly found the State’s position untenable.
• They maintained that no interference was warranted with the High Court’s judgment, which had found them to be discriminated against.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues, as framed in the case of Dr. P.A. Bhatt:

1. Whether different scales of pay can be fixed for officers appointed to the same cadre, on the basis of educational qualifications possessed by them?
2. Whether Allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine can be said to be performing “equal work” so as to be entitled to “equal pay”?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• State of Gujarat and Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others [2023 SCC Online SC 503] – Supreme Court of India: This case was heavily relied upon by the court to differentiate between the duties of Allopathy and Ayurveda doctors.

Legal Provisions Considered:

No specific legal provisions were discussed in the judgment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Gujarat and Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others [2023 SCC Online SC 503]: The Supreme Court followed this case, using its findings to support the conclusion that Allopathy and Ayurveda doctors do not perform equal work, and thus are not entitled to equal pay.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the precedent set in State of Gujarat and Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others. The court emphasized the differences in the nature of duties and responsibilities between Allopathy and Ayurveda doctors, particularly highlighting the emergency and trauma care provided by Allopathy doctors, which Ayurveda doctors are not equipped to handle. This distinction formed the basis of the court’s decision to overturn the High Court’s judgment. The court also acknowledged the revision of stipends, but this was not a deciding factor.

The court considered the comparative chart provided by the Government, which detailed the differences in duties. The court noted that Allopathy doctors are required to perform emergency duties and trauma care, which Ayurveda doctors are not equipped to do. The court observed, “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.”

The court also stated, “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.”

The court further stated, “In view of the specific findings of this Court that the 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.”

Key Takeaways

• Post Graduate students of Ayurveda are not entitled to the same stipend as Post Graduate students of Allopathy.
• The nature of duties and responsibilities of Allopathy and Ayurveda doctors are different, especially in emergency and trauma care.
• The principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply when the nature of work is different.
• This judgment reinforces the precedent set in State of Gujarat and Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Post Graduate students of Ayurveda are not entitled to the same stipend as Post Graduate students of Allopathy because their duties are not equal. This judgment reinforces the position of law established in State of Gujarat and Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others, clarifying that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply when the nature of work is different.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, overturning the High Court’s decision. The Court held that Post Graduate students of Ayurveda are not entitled to the same stipend as Post Graduate students of Allopathy, as their duties and responsibilities are not equivalent. This judgment reaffirms the principle that “equal pay for equal work” does not apply when the nature of work is different, especially in the context of varying medical practices.