Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay Scales Based on Qualifications: State of Gujarat vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt (26 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 367

Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can doctors with different qualifications, but in the same cadre, be paid differently? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning Allopathic and AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy) doctors in Gujarat. The core issue was whether doctors holding Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degrees should receive the same pay as those holding MBBS degrees. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute over pay scales for doctors in Gujarat. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare formed a High-Power Committee, chaired by Shri R.K. Tikku, in 1990 to improve the service conditions of doctors in government service. This committee focused on doctors with MBBS degrees and postgraduate qualifications. A separate committee was formed for practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy. The Gujarat government accepted the recommendations of the Tikku Committee for allopathic doctors in 1994, citing a shortage of such doctors. Subsequently, the government extended these benefits to non-MBBS medical officers in 1999. However, this extension was later withdrawn in 2013 after the High Court’s intervention.

The respondents, initially appointed under a community health scheme and later absorbed by the State, filed writ petitions seeking the same pay scales as MBBS doctors based on the Tikku Pay Commission recommendations. The High Court ruled in their favor, stating that doctors with alternative medicine degrees should be treated equally. The State appealed this decision, leading to the Supreme Court case.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal framework:

• Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India: These articles guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. The court examined whether the differential pay scales violated these principles.
• Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section outlines the procedure for police to inquire and report on suicide and other deaths, requiring examination by a Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical man.
• Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with inquiries by Magistrates into the cause of death, using similar terms as Section 174 regarding medical professionals.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Gujarat:

• The Tikku Pay Commission recommendations were specifically for MBBS doctors due to a shortage of allopathic doctors and to attract talent.
• The State was not facing a shortage of AYUSH doctors, so there was no need to offer them higher pay scales.
• Different pay scales for the same cadre based on qualifications are legally permissible.
• Allopathic and AYUSH doctors perform different duties and responsibilities.

Arguments by the Respondents (AYUSH Doctors):

• Both Allopathic and AYUSH doctors are appointed to the same cadre of Medical Officer.
• Once different qualifications are appointed to a unified cadre with a common pay scale and rules, the government cannot make a classification later.
• All Medical Officers, regardless of qualifications, perform the same duties.
• The Government Resolution dated 01.01.1999 extended the Tikku Pay Commission benefits to non-MBBS degree holders, which was later withdrawn.
• Both categories of doctors perform equal work and are entitled to equal pay.

Submissions Table:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The respondents argued that once individuals with different qualifications are placed in the same cadre with a common pay scale, the government cannot later create a classification for differential pay. This argument sought to establish that the initial unified cadre should dictate pay equality.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether different scales of pay can be fixed for officers appointed to the same cadre, based on the educational qualifications they possess?
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

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed The State of Mysore vs. P. Narasinga Rao [AIR 1968 SC 349]* holding that classification based on educational qualifications is valid.
• The Court followed Dr. C. Girijambal vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [(1981) 2 SCC 155]* stating that equal pay for equal work is not applicable in professional services with different qualifications.
• The Court followed Mewa Ram Kanojia vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences [(1989) 2 SCC 235]* clarifying that classification based on qualifications and duties is permissible.
• The Court followed Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521]* stating that pay scales can vary based on qualifications even with similar work.
• The Court distinguished State of Haryana vs. Ram Chander [(1997) 5 SCC 253]* noting that parity was granted because the State ignored educational differences.
• The Court followed Director of Elementary Education, Odisha vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo [(2019) 10 SCC 674]* stating that classification based on educational qualification for higher pay is valid.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Differential Duties: The court emphasized that allopathic doctors perform critical duties such as emergency care, surgeries, and post-mortems, which AYUSH doctors are not trained or authorized to perform.
• Educational Qualifications: The court upheld that different educational qualifications justify different pay scales, especially in professional services.
• Government Policy: The court acknowledged the government’s need to attract allopathic doctors due to shortages, justifying higher pay scales for them.
• Historical Context: The court recognized the historical significance of Ayurveda but noted that modern medical practices have evolved differently.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Differential Pay Scales Upheld: The Supreme Court affirmed that different pay scales for employees in the same cadre are permissible based on educational qualifications.
• No Equal Pay for Unequal Work: Allopathic and AYUSH doctors do not perform equal work due to differences in their duties and responsibilities.
• Impact on AYUSH Doctors: AYUSH doctors may not be entitled to the same pay scales as allopathic doctors in similar government positions.
• Recovery of Benefits: Benefits received by AYUSH doctors due to the interim order are to be recovered.
• Future Impact: This judgment sets a precedent for cases involving pay parity claims based on qualifications and nature of work, particularly in professional services.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the benefits derived by the respondents (AYUSH doctors) by virtue of the interim order passed by the Court on 08.09.2014, are to be recovered from the respondents.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that classification based on educational qualifications for pay scales is valid, and that equal pay for equal work does not apply when the nature of work and responsibilities differ significantly, especially in professional services. This judgment reinforces the principle that pay parity claims must be based on genuine equality in the nature of work and responsibilities, not just the cadre or designation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Gujarat, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that different pay scales for medical officers based on their educational qualifications (MBBS vs. BAMS) are valid and that Allopathic and AYUSH doctors do not perform equal work to be entitled to equal pay. The benefits received by the respondents due to the interim order were ordered to be recovered. This judgment clarifies the legal position on pay parity claims in professional services, emphasizing the importance of both qualifications and the nature of work.