DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
3rd August 2021
BENCH:
Justice L.Nageswara Rao
Justice Hrishikesh Roy
PARTIES:
North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC)........................ (Appellant)
Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma &ors..............................(Respondent)
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court held that Ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH are also entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years just like the Allopathic doctors.
AN OVERVIEW
- The appeal has been filed by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) against a judgement passed by the Delhi High Court.
- The order was issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 31.05.2016 to raise the age of superannuation for the General Duty Medical Officers [GDMO] of the Central Health Scheme [CHS] from 60 years to 65 years.
- The NDMC had adopted the order and enhanced the retirement age to 65 years for the Allopathic doctors working in the NDMC.
- Ayurvedic doctors working in the NDMC were aggrieved with their exclusion from the order enhancing the age of retirement. Therefore, the applications were filed by the Ayurvedic doctors before the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal had allowed the applications, accepting their argument of unjust discrimination. The Tribunal held that the applicants were entitled to the same service conditions including the enhanced age of superannuation to 65 years.
- Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the petition, the AYUSH Ministry issued the order superannuation to 65 years to the other category doctors, w.e.f. 27.09.2017. The High Court upheld the Tribunal orders and dismissed the petition filed by the NDMC.
- Subsequently, while the NDMC had adopted the Ministry’s decision; those Ayurvedic doctors, who fell in the window between 31.05.2016 and 26.09.2019, were deprived of getting the benefit of the enhanced retirement age.
- The respondent contended that though they were permitted to continue in service beyond 60 years but they were disentitled to claim any equitable relief by way of arrear of salary because they remained in service under interim orders of the Court.
ISSUES
- Whether there is any intelligible differentia between the Allopathic and the AYUSH doctors?
- Whether the applicability of order passed w.e.f 31.05.2016 by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare would apply to the AYUSH doctors?
- Whether the state’s counsel can plead financial burden to deny salary to legally serving doctors?
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
Article 14: Equality before the law
i. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
ii. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- The Supreme Court held that both Allopathic and AYUSH doctors, render service to patients and there is “no rational justification” for having different dates for giving the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these medical practitioners.
- The Bench held 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 (equality before law) of the Constitution.
- It said that the only difference is that AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine while Central Health Scheme (CHS) doctors are using allopathy for treating to their patients.
- The Bench, bearing in mind the legal principle of ‘Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit’, held that the interim order of the High Court cannot deny the salary, arrears and benefits to respondents.
- Firstly, the Bench said that the action of the concerned authority in not paying AYUSH doctors their due salary and benefits, while their counterpart, the CHS system received salary and benefits in full, must be seen as discriminatory.
- In addition to that, the Bench, while dealing with the arguments that paying arrear unpaid wages to these doctors will impose a substantial financial burden upon the State, relied on the principle of ‘no work, no pay’ protects employers from paying their employees if they don’t receive service from them.
- A corollary thereof ‘no work should go unpaid’ should be the appropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases, where the service rendered by the respondent doctors has been productive both for the patients and also the employer.
- Lastly, the State cannot be allowed to plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors. On the date of 24.09.2017, the order of the AYUSH Ministry must be retrospectively applied from 31.05. 2016 to all concerned doctors in these appeals.
CONCLUSION
The Court had ordered that respondent-doctors are entitled to get full salary arrears and the order is to be disbursed within eight weeks from the date of the passing of the order. Belated payment beyond the stipulated period will carry interest, at the rate of 6% from the date of this order until the date of payment.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
