TITLE: THE STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. V. VIJAY KUMAR TIWARI AND ORS.
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2024 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.105 OF 2024] DIARY NO.20723 OF 2021]
DECIDED ON: 2 JANUARY 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Facts of the Case
In this Case, The appeal is directed against the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision and order dated November 19, 2019. The respondents in this case were students enrolled in an autonomous ayurvedic college’s master’s programme in ayurveda.
The students claimed they were discriminated against in terms of stipend even though they were doing work akin to that of Post Graduate students in Allopathy. The defendants filed Writ Petition No. 6415 of 2015, which the High Court granted, stating that the State’s unequal treatment of stipends constituted discriminatory practice.
Legal Provisions:
The legal principles discussed include whether different scales of pay can be fixed based on educational qualifications and whether doctors of indigenous medicine can be said to be performing “equal work” for entitlement to “equal pay.”
Issues Involved:
Whether the students pursuing Post Graduate courses in Ayurveda can be considered to be of a different class than those pursuing Post Graduate courses in Allopathy. Whether the differential stipend provided to students in Ayurveda compared to Allopathy amounts to discrimination. Whether the judgment of the High Court is sustainable in light of the duties performed by Post Graduate students in Ayurveda as compared to Allopathy.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
In its ruling, the High Court determined that the State had not proven that students studying Ayurveda and Allopathy belonged to distinct social strata, resulting in unequal treatment with regard to stipends. The appellant-state contested the ruling of the High Court, claiming that postgraduate students studying Ayurveda have different responsibilities than those studying Allopathy. The Supreme Court determined that the nature of the responsibilities of doctors in Ayurveda and Allopathy differs, after analyzing the obligations of doctors in both streams in the State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt case. The Court noted that the government’s comparative chart made clear the differences in responsibilities between doctors of Allopathy and Ayurveda. Based on its previous ruling, the Court determined that physicians practicing Allopathy and Ayurveda do not undertake comparable labour and therefore not be paid equally. The Court observed that there has been a slight change to the stipends for both streams. As a result, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, overturned the decision of the High Court, and rejected the respondents’ Writ Petition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
