New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently rendered a verdict stating that Post Graduate Ayurveda students are not entitled to an equal stipend as their counterparts in Allopathy. The decision, which followed an appeal by the Madhya Pradesh government, questioned the legal validity of the High Court’s November 19, 2019, order, deeming it “not sustainable in law.”
Madhya Pradesh’s Additional Advocate General, Saurabh Mishra, challenged the High Court’s decision, asserting that the matter was no longer res integra. He referenced a Supreme Court case from the previous year, State of Gujarat and others Vs Dr P A Bhatt and others, which emphasized the distinct duties performed by Post Graduate students in Ayurveda compared to Allopathy.
Mishra highlighted a stipend revision that had occurred subsequently, noting that there was now minimal difference in the stipends paid to Post Graduate students in both streams. However, Ayurveda students, represented by Vijay Kumar Tiwari and others, argued before the High Court that they were being discriminated against, despite performing duties similar to their Allopathy counterparts. The Ayurveda students’ contention was that the state government’s stand, supported by the High Court, was untenable.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, concurred with the state’s position.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
“Therefore, even while recognizing the importance of Ayurved doctors and the need to promote alternative/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.”
The court declared the High Court’s judgment and order unsustainable, asserting that the Ayurveda students were not entitled to equal stipends due to the disparity in the duties performed by the two streams.
This decision underscores the court’s recognition of the differing roles and responsibilities of medical students in Ayurveda and Allopathy.