2021 (8) TMI 1403 - SC - Indian Laws

Benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years) just like the allopathic doctors - HELD THAT - 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. 14019/4/2016-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. The Appellant s actions in not paying the Respondent doctors their due salary and benefits while their counterparts in CHS system received salary and benefits in full must be seen as discriminatory. Hence there are no hesitation in holding that the Respondent-doctors are entitled to their full salary arrears and the same is ordered to be disbursed within 8 weeks from today. Belated payment beyond the stipulated period will carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of this order until the date of payment. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Ayurvedic doctors to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years.
2. Discrimination between Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors regarding retirement age.
3. Payment of arrears and salary to Ayurvedic doctors who continued to work beyond 60 years under interim court orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Ayurvedic doctors to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years:
The central issue was whether Ayurvedic doctors under AYUSH were entitled to the same enhanced superannuation age of 65 years as allopathic doctors. Initially, the retirement age for General Duty Medical Officers (GDMO) of the Central Health Scheme (CHS), Dentists, and AYUSH doctors was 60 years. The Government of India, through an order dated 31.05.2016, enhanced the retirement age to 65 years for allopathic doctors. However, this enhancement was not initially extended to Ayurvedic doctors. The Tribunal, in its order dated 24.08.2017, declared that Ayurvedic doctors were entitled to the same benefit, which was later upheld by the High Court. The Ministry of AYUSH subsequently issued an order on 24.11.2017, enhancing the superannuation age for AYUSH doctors to 65 years, effective from 27.09.2017.

2. Discrimination between Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors regarding retirement age:
The Tribunal and the High Court found that the differential treatment between allopathic and Ayurvedic doctors regarding the retirement age was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Tribunal held that the applicants (Ayurvedic doctors) were entitled to the same service conditions, including the enhanced retirement age of 65 years, as applicable to allopathic doctors under the CHS. The High Court affirmed this view, noting that the NDMC had adopted the Ministry's decision for allopathic doctors but had not extended the same benefit to Ayurvedic doctors until the AYUSH Ministry's order dated 24.11.2017. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, stating that the classification was unreasonable since both categories of doctors performed the same function of treating patients.

3. Payment of arrears and salary to Ayurvedic doctors who continued to work beyond 60 years under interim court orders:
The Tribunal and the High Court directed that Ayurvedic doctors who continued to work beyond 60 years under interim court orders should be paid their due salary and arrears. The Supreme Court upheld this directive, rejecting the argument that the respondents were not entitled to remuneration because they served under interim orders. The Court emphasized the principle "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit," meaning the act of the court shall prejudice no one, and stated that the respondents must be paid their lawful remuneration. The Court also highlighted that denying salary for work done would violate the respondents' rights under Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered the disbursement of full salary arrears to the respondents within eight weeks, with interest for delayed payment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court, affirming that Ayurvedic doctors under AYUSH were entitled to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years, similar to allopathic doctors. The Court found the differential treatment discriminatory and ordered the disbursement of salary arrears to the Ayurvedic doctors who continued to work beyond 60 years under interim court orders. The appeals were disposed of with directions for timely payment of arrears and interest for delays.