Supreme Court: State Cannot Plead Financial Burden To Deny Salary For Legally Serving Doctors
Case: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and others
Coram: Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2021
Court Observation: “The State cannot be allowed plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors. Otherwise, it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution”
“in the present case, the respondent-doctors have been working continuously without break, pursuant to the Interim order of the Delhi High Court dated 26.09.2017”
“In these matters, for almost 5 years, the respondent doctors have been providing service to countless patients, without remuneration or benefits. Their services are utilized by the employer in Government establishments, without demur”
“We are quite clear in our mind that the respondents must be paid their lawful remuneration arrears and current, as the case may be. The State cannot be allowed to plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors. Otherwise, it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution”
The only difference is that AYUSH doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using Allopathy for tending to their patients. In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things does not qualify as an intelligible differentia. Therefore, such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution”
“The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D. 4019/4/2016¬E¬I (AYUSH)) dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent¬ doctors, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion”
[doc id=7555]
Previous Judgments
Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding ‘Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts’, Reiterates Supreme Court
Keywords
Financial Burden, Supreme Court State, Doctors Salary & Judgment.
