New Delhi:The Supreme Court has said that postgraduate students in ayurveda would not be entitled to stipend being paid to allopathy stream students, as there is difference in nature of duties discharged.
A bench comprising justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said, “In view of the specific findings of this court that the nature of duties discharged by the postgraduate students in ayurveda stream is not the same as that of postgraduate students undertaking therein education in allopathy stream, the impugned judgment (of the high court) and order would not be sustainable”.
The apex court, in a judgment delivered on January 2, allowed an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government and set aside the high court's order of November 19, 2019.
Saurabh Misra, Additional Advocate General for Madhya Pradesh, questioned the validity of the high court’s order, saying the issue is no longerres integra. It was contended before the court that the apex court in Gujarat and others vs. Dr. P. A. Bhatt and others (2023), has held that the duties discharged by the postgraduate students in ayurveda stream cannot be equated with the duties discharged by the postgraduate students in allopathy stream.
On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents, representing the ayurveda students, submitted that the stand taken by the state before the high court was found to be not tenable and as such, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order.
Mishra further submitted that as a matter of fact, subsequently, there has been a revision of stipend paid to both the streams and as a matter of fact, there is not much of a difference in the stipend paid to the postgraduate students in both the streams.
The high court had observed that the state had failed to establish that the students pursuing postgraduate course in ayurveda are of different class than that of students pursuing postgraduate course in allopathy. “It was, therefore, found that the state was indulging in a discriminatory practice. A mandamus was, therefore, issued to the State to treat the students pursuing postgraduate in ayurveda stream at par with the students pursuing postgraduate course in allopathy stream”, noted the apex court.
The apex court accepted the contention of the state government counsel. The bench relied on its 2023 judgment, which said "even while recognising the importance of ayurved doctors and the need to promote alternative or indigenous systems of medicine, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay".
Allowing the state government’s appeal, the bench said: “The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order is, therefore, quashed and set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein (respondents herein) before the High Court stands dismissed”.
Read More
- SC refuses to interfere with HC order acquitting Union minister Ajay Mishra Teni in murder case
- SC stays Bombay HC order asking EC to hold Pune LS bypoll immediately
- Supreme Court Collegium recommends Judges to 2 High Courts
