Date of Judgement:
24thMarch 2022
Coram/judge:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Parties to the Case:
Petitioner- State of Uttarakhand & Ors
Respondents- Sanjay Singh Chauhan & Ors.
Legal Provisions
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India- grants the right to equal treatment under the law or equality before the law. It is a declaration of equality for all in the territory of India,no one is entitled to any special treatment. All individuals are guaranteed equal treatment in the exercise of their rights and privileges without favouritism or discrimination.
Overview
- The petitioners were appointed as Medical Officers under the Ministry of Ayush on a contract basis during the year 2010-13 under the “National Rural Health Mission” (NRHM). The scheme was started bythe Central Government in the year 2005 for the purpose of proper healthcare, particularly in rural India.
- The petitioners were appointed in Rastriya Bal Swasthaya Karyakram (RBSK) run by the NRHM. The State Government had employed Ayurvedic, Homeopathic, Dental, and Allopathic Medical Officers under the scheme on a contract basis.
- The Allopathic and Dental Doctors were given consolidated pay of Rs.48,000/- for Sugam, Rs.52,000/- for Durgam,and Rs.56,000/- for Ati-durgam places. The petitioners were paid only Rs.36,000/- for Sugam, Rs.40,000/- for Durgam,and Rs.44,000/- for Ati-durgam places.
- Initially, there was no difference in the salaries, as per advertisement issued in the year 2010. The petitioners had made several representations to the Ministry seeking equality of salary with their counterparts working as Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers.
Arguments Advanced by The Petitioner (Respondents herein) before HC
- It was submitted that the petitioners had obtained their degrees from recognized institutions. They also took 4-5 years course. It was the decision of the patient to opt for any of the systemsi.e., Allopathic, Ayurvedic, or Homeopathic.
- There was no intelligible differentia to distinguish the Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Officers as against Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers. There was no rationale as to why the similarly situated persons had been discriminated against. The Medical Officers constituted a homogenous class.
- Their nature of degrees and duration of courses were almost the same. There was also discrimination of paying Rs.10,000/- extra to the Doctors working in Community Health Centres and Primary Health Centres. The petitioners were working in rural areas. They should not be discriminated against only on the ground that they were not serving in Community Health Centres and Primary Health Centres.
Arguments Advanced by the Respondent (petitioner herein) Before the High court
- It was the contention of the State Government that the case of the petitioners was to be rejected on the ground that they were working on a contractual basis. Although they were discharging the same duties which were being discharged by the Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers
Issue
Whether the Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Officers were to have the same pay-scale or the government was right in forming such differentiation between them and Allopathic & Dental officers?
Judgment Analysis
- The Learned Judge relied on the case of Bhagwan Dass & Ors V. State of Haryana &Ors, where the Apex court had held that if duties and functions of temporary appointees and employees of regular cadre in a particular government department were similar, there could not be any discrimination in payment made to them merely on the ground of difference in the mode of their selection or that the appointment or scheme under which appointments made was temporary.
- The High Court was of the view that the duties discharged by the petitioners and Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers were of equal sensitivity and quality.The responsibility and reliability were also the same.The classification done by the Government was held as irrational. Hence, the impugned order was passed.
- The present Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court was filed by the State Government against such order of the High Court.
- Honourable Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, held that the order passed by the High Court was tenable.
- It was reiterated that the respondents should be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health Mission Scheme.
- Although it was open to the petitioners to apply for a review petition at the High Court if such remedy is available to them in law.
Conclusion
The Honourable Supreme Court supported the views of the High Court of Uttarakhand and reiterated that Ayurvedic and Homeopathic medical officers were entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic and Dental medical officers. ‘Equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned contractual employees. It would vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum pay-scale of regular Government employees working at the same designation.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
