The Supreme Court, on Thursday, upheld the order of the
Uttarakhand High Court that under the NRHM/NHM Scheme, Ayurvedic Doctors will
be entitled to parity in salary with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental
Medical Officers, legal website Live Law said.

A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and J.K. Maheshwari
refused to entertain the plea challenging the order of the High Court. But,
clarified –

“However, we may only clarify that the respondents who
are Ayurvedic doctors will be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic
Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health
Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme.”

In 2015, the Union Government had launched the National
Rural Health Mission (“NRHM”), which is a sub-mission of the National
Health Mission (“NHM”), to provide accessible, affordable and quality
health care to the rural population. The respondents were appointed, as Medical
Officer, Ayush, on a contractual basis, between 2010 and 2013 under the said
Mission. They were appointed in Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK). The
Uttarakhand State Government also appointed Allopathic, Dental, Ayurvedic and
Homeopathic Medical Officers under the NRHM on contractual basis. There was a
considerable disparity in the salary of the Allopathic and Dental Doctors and
that of the Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Doctors. The respondents had made
representations seeking parity in salary, but in vain. The concerned
authorities, while rejecting their representations stated that they are not
entitled to parity as they were working on contractual basis. Aggrieved, the
respondents had approached the Uttarakhand High Court.

Before the High Court, the Ayurvedic Medical Officers
(respondents) contended that as per the advertisement issued by the Government
in 2010 there was no difference in salary between the Allopathic Medical
Officers and Ayurvedic Medical Officers. It was also argued that the duties
discharged by the Ayurvedic and Allopathic Medical Officer were the same.

The High Court noted that there was no intelligible
differentia to consider the Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Officers as a
different class from the Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers –

“There is no intelligible differentia so as to
distinguish the Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Officers viz-a-viz Allopathic
and Dental Medical Officers. There is no rational why the similar situate
persons have been discriminated against. The petitioners as well as Allopathic
and Dental Medical Officers constitute homogenous class.”

It was also observed by the High Court that the nature of
degrees and duration of courses were almost the same and therefore, they cannot
be classified separately. Citing Bhagwan Dass and Others v. State of Haryana
And Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 643, the Court stated that when duties and functions of
temporary appointees and employees of the regular cadre in the same Government
Department are similar, parity in respect of salary cannot be denied based
merely on the nature of their appointment. Reliance was placed by the High
Court on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit
Singh And Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 148, wherein it was held that the ‘equal pay for
equal work’ principle is vested in every employee, irrespective of their nature
of appointment.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition filed by
the respondents granting parity in salary on the ground that the classification
made by the State Government was irrational –

“In the instant case, the duties discharged by the
petitioners viz-a-viz Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers
are of equal sensitivity and quality, even the responsibility and reliability
are the same. The classification made by the State Government is
irrational.”