Skip to main content

Doctrine of 'No Work Should Go Unpaid' to be applied to all doctors operating under AYUSH and CHS: Supreme Court

No discrimination between doctors under Ayush and CHS


By - Pavni Dada*

In an office order dated June 30, 2016, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) accepted the Government of India order and raised the retirement age for allopathic doctors working in the NDMC to 65 years. Whereas the Tribunal in the current case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. ruled that ayurvedic doctors covered by AYUSH had the same right to retirement age of 65-years as allopathic doctors. 

On the basis of this ruling, it was determined that the applicants were entitled to receive the same benefits and conditions of employment, including retirement age of 65-years, as doctors employed by CHS under the decision dated 31.05.2016. Employers were instructed to allow ayurveda doctors to work till the age of 65.

The appellant NDMC filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, expressing its displeasure with the Tribunal's ruling. Government of India, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy Unani Siddha and Homeopathy issued an order on 24.11.2017 stating that the retirement age for AYUSH doctors has also been raised to 65 years.

Also Read - Allahabad HC seeks UP government's justification on Dr. Kafeel Khan's continuing suspension.

The High Court’s interim order says the defendant may work, but will not be given pay until a decision is made. The defendant cannot claim compensation for services done if the plaintiff prevails. The high court ruled that doctors could only hold administrative jobs until they reached the age of 62, after which they would be assigned to non-administrative positions. 

They were to abide by the interim order dated September 26, 2017, until the matter is resolved. The high court cited a few previous cases, several of which were dismissed due to factual disparities. The high court was satisfied with the ruling of the tribunal.

This policy decision on extension of retirement age was originally only applicable to allopathic doctors but was later extended to other categories of doctors (including ayurvedic doctors) covered by AYUSH, according to the Tribunal's order. 

Also Read - Cognizance of offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act by magistrate does not automatically result in a decree against the respondent: Delhi High Court.

The respondent doctors have been continually employed in hospitals till they reach the enhanced retirement age of 65 years, as stipulated in the AYUSH Ministry order dated 24.11.2017 and the High Court's interim order dated 26.09.2017, respectively. As a result of this action, patients, as well as their employers, have benefited from their efforts without paying them off. 

As a result of the interim orders, the question of whether or not they should be paid wages was highlighted. A doctor's basic pay cannot be denied under the saying "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit", which implies that the act of the court will not harm anyone. The state will be burdened financially in this case as said by the senior counsel for the appellant. The State's counsel, on one hand, will not accept such submission as fair. The State, on the other hand, cannot use the excuse of financial hardship to refuse doctors' salaries. Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India would be violated if this were to happen.

Also Read - Madras HC strikes down Tamil Nadu law banning online games with stakes; calls it excessive and disproportionate.

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court held that the fact that ayurvedic doctors provided services despite not being paid cannot be overlooked. The unjust criterion of differentiation between AYUSH and CHS doctors is in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, in the present appeal, the AYUSH Ministry's order (increased retirement age) dated 24.11.2017 is directed to be retroactively implemented to all affected respondent doctors as of 31.05.2016. 

In light of the foregoing, the appellant's failure to pay the respondent doctors their appropriate salary and benefits, while their CHS counterparts received full pay and benefits, was regarded as discriminatory by the court. The classification was both discriminatory and illogical since doctors in both sectors treat and heal patients. 

“...the respondent ­doctors are entitled to their full salary arrears and the same is ordered to be disbursed, within 8 weeks from today. 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.”, the court held.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT. 

*Pavni Dada is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.”   The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...
Post a Comment
Read more