NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus DR. RAM NARESH SHARMA & ORS. on 3 August 2021

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

V.

DR. RAM NARESH SHARMA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2021)

AUGUST 03, 2021

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]

Service law: Age of superannuation – Ayurvedic doctorscovered under AYUSH – Benefit of enhanced superannuation ageof 65 years along with renumeration like allopathic doctors –Entitlement to – Tribunal holding that the applicants-ayurvedicdoctors covered under AYUSH entitled to the benefit of enhancedsuperannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), just likethe allopathic doctors – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal,held: Applicants have continuously served in hospitals till attainingthe enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 65 years vide the AYUSHMinistry order dated 24.11.2017 and by virtue of interim order ofthe High Court – Principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ would not beapplicable – Service rendered by the applicant-doctors having beenproductive both for the patients and also the employer, the basicbenefit of salary cannot be denied to the doctors – Government notpaying the applicants their due salary and benefits, while theircounterparts in CHS received salary and benefits in full, isdiscriminatory – State cannot plead financial burden to deny salaryfor the legally serving doctors, else it would violate their rights u/Arts. 14, 21 and 23 – Thus, applicants entitled to their lawfulremuneration-arrears –Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 21 and 23.

Constitution of India: Art. 14 – Classification and intelligibledifferentia – Classification of AYUSH doctors and doctors underCentral Health Scheme in different categories – Held: Isdiscriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segmentsare performing the same function of treating and healing their patients– Only difference is the mode of treatment which does not qualifyas an intelligible differentia – Thus, such unreasonable classificationand discrimination, inconsistent with Art. 14 – Further, no rationaljustification for having different dates for bestowing the benefit ofextended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors

79

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

[2021] 8 S.C.R.

A– Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 to beretrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned AYUSHdoctors.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Bearing in mind the legal principle maximB“Actus Curiae neminem gravabit”, which means that the act ofthe Court shall prejudice no one, the Interim order of Delhi HighCourt dated 26.09.2017 cannot be the basis to deny salary andarrear benefits to respondents. The said interim order mergedwith the final judgment dated 15.11.2018 and all consequentialCbenefits of employment were due to the respondents. Therefore,when the respondents worked and served patients, the basicbenefit of salary cannot be denied to the doctors. [Para 17][88-G-H; 89-A]

Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant VimalnathDNarichania (2010) 9 SCC 437 : [2010] 10 SCR 971– relied on.

1.2 In these matters, for almost 5 years, the respondentdoctors have been providing service to countless patients,without remuneration or benefits. Their services are utilized byEthe employer in Government establishments, without demur. Theprinciple of ‘No Work, No Pay’ protects employers from payingtheir employees if they don’t receive service from them. Acorollary thereto of ‘No work should go unpaid’ should be theappropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases where theservice rendered by the respondent doctors have beenFproductive both for the patients and also the employer. Therefore,the respondents must be paid their lawful remuneration-arrearsand current, as the case may be. The State cannot be allowedplead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors.Otherwise it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 andG23 of the Constitution. [Para 20][90-A-E]

1.3 In the case of the respondent in SLP (C) 12046/2019i.e. Dr. H.P. Singh, it is averred by the appellants, that he has notworked after superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years.But, there is sufficient evidence on record to suggest that therespondent-doctor through several representations sought to beH

re-appointed but it was the employer who created impedimentsand did not allow the respondent to re-join his duties in hospitals.In such circumstances, the principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ cannotbe raised by the employers, as it is they who had obstructed thedoctor from discharging his service. [Para 21][90-E-F]

Dayanand Chakrawarthy v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2013) 7 SCC 595 – referred to.

1.4 The findings of the tribunal and the High Court that theclassification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under Central HealthScheme-CHS in different categories is discriminatory andunreasonable since doctors under both segments are performingthe same function of treating and healing their patients, isconcurred with. The only difference is that AYUSH doctors areusing indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, etc.and CHS doctors are using Allopathy for tending to their patients.The mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme ofthings, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia. Therefore,such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on itwould surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.The order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 extending theage of superannuation to 65 Years also endorses such a view.This extension is in tune with the notification of Ministry of Healthand Family Welfare dated 31.05.2016. [Para 22][91-A-D]

1.5 The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, renderservice to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing todistinguish them. Therefore, no rational justification is seen forhaving different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended ageof superannuation to these two categories of doctors. Hence, theorder of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D. 14019/4/2016-E-I (AYUSH))dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016to all concerned respondent-doctors. [Para 23][91-D-E]

1.6 The appellant’s actions in not paying the respondentdoctors their due salary and benefits, while their counterparts inCHS system received salary and benefits in full, must be seen as A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Adiscriminatory. Hence, the respondent-doctors are entitled to theirfull salary arrears and the same is ordered to be disbursed.Belated payment beyond the stipulated period would carryinterest, at the rate of 6% from the date of this order until thedate of payment. [Para 24][91-F-G]

BU. P. State Brasswar Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. UdayNarain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 : [2005] 5 Suppl.SCR 609; New Okhla Industrial Development Authority& Anr. v. B. D. Singhal & Ors. (2021) SCC OnLine SC466 – distinguished.

CCentral Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. DhobeiSahoo and Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 161 : [2013] 14 SCR621 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4578Eof 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.2018 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in W. P. (C) No.637 of 2018.

WithFCivil Appeal Nos.4579, 4580, 4581, 4582, 4583, 4584, 4585 and4586 of 2021.

R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Praveen Swarup, Ms. PayalSwarup, Ameet Singh, Ms. Pareena Swarup, Raghvendra Shukla, Advs.for the Appellant.G

Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. AlkaAgarwal, Adit Khorana, Manish, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Dr. K. B. S. Rajan,Ashiesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar Sharma, SPM Tripathi, V K Shukla, SugamMishra, Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Ms. Beena, Satish Kumar, P. Niroop,Manoj C. Mishra, Tanvir Nayar, Raj Kumar Chandiwal, Advs. for theHRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

1. Leave granted. These appeals are directed against the judgmentand order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi wherebythe Court upheld the common final order dated 24.08.2017 of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench [hereinafter referred to as the‘Tribunal’ for short] and dismissed the petitions filed by the North DelhiMunicipal Corporation [hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDMC’ for short].The Tribunal declared that the applicants who are ayurvedic doctorscovered under AYUSH are also entitled to the benefit of enhancedsuperannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), just like theallopathic doctors. The entitlement of the respondents to continue inservice upto 65 years and receive due remuneration for the same is theonly issue to be considered in these cases. For the sake of convenience,the relevant facts are taken from SLP (C) No. 10156 of 2019.

2. Prior to 31.05.2016, the retirement age was 60 years for theGeneral Duty Medical Officers [‘GDMO’ for short] of the Central HealthScheme [‘CHS’ for short], the Dentists and Doctors covered underAYUSH (including ayurvedic doctors). At that stage, the Governmentof India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued the order dated31.05.2016, with immediate effect, enhancing upto 65 years, the age ofsuperannuation of the specialists of Non-teaching and public health sub-cadres of CHS and GDMOs of CHS. This was followed by consequentialamendment of the Fundamental Rules, 1922 by Gazette Notification dated31.05.2016 of the Department of Personnel Training. On 30.06.2016 theNDMC adopted the Government of India order by issuing office orderdated 30.06.2016 and enhanced the retirement age to 65 years for theAllopathic doctors working in the NDMC. The Office Memorandumissued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 30.08.2016 thenclarified that the enhanced superannuation age granted by order dated31.05.2016 is applicable to GDMOs of CHS i.e. the allopathic doctorsand municipal corporations and others were given the liberty to taketheir own decision on the matter, on the applicability of the Ministry’sdecision on enhancement of superannuation age. Thus, the ayurvedicdoctors were not seen to have been covered by the Ministry’s orderdated 31.05.2016.

3. The above led to several Original Applications (OA) filed bythe ayurvedic doctors, before the Tribunal. The respondent Dr. Ram A

B

C

DE

FG

H

ANaresh Sharma and other ayurvedic doctors sought the benefit of theGovernment decision and the office order of NDMC, for it to be madeapplicable to the ayurvedic doctors as well. On 09.12.2016 an interimorder was passed by the Tribunal to the following effect.:

“In the meantime, it is directed that the Applicant may beBallowed to continue in service on the post held by him beyondthe date of his retirement/superannuation till further orders,however, he will not be paid any salary nor shall this orderconfer any right or equity in favour of the Applicant.”

4. By the common final order dated 24.08.2017, the TribunalCaccepted the discrimination argument advanced by the ayurvedic doctorsvis-à-vis the allopathic doctors. Accordingly, it was held that the applicantswere entitled to same service conditions including the enhanced age ofsuperannuation to 65 years, as made applicable to doctors (GDMOs)working under the CHS, in terms of the order dated 31.05.2016 of Ministryof Health and Family Welfare. Thus, the employer was directed to allowDthe ayurvedic doctors to continue in service till the age of 65 years. Itwas clarified that in case any of the applicants had been made tosuperannuate at the age of 60 years, he/she shall be reinstated and bepermitted to serve until the age of 65 years.

5. Aggrieved by the above decision of the Tribunal, the appellantENDMC preferred Writ Petitions before the High Court of Delhi. Duringthe pendency of writ petition, on 24.11.2017, the Ministry of Ayurveda,Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (‘AYUSH’ for short),Government of India, issued an order whereby it was communicatedthat the superannuation age of AYUSH doctors is also enhanced to 65Fyears w.e.f. 27.09.2017, i.e. the date of approval of Union Cabinet. Itwas however directed that the doctors shall hold administrative positionsonly until age of 62 years and thereafter, their service shall be placed innon-administrative positions.

6. It may be noted that the High Court on 26.09.2017 in WP(C)G8704/2017 arising out of OA 2712/ 2016 (NDMC vs. Dr. Santosh KumarSharma), had passed the following interim order:

“**************

Since the private respondents are still working under theorders as passed by the Tribunal, the respondents may continueHto work, if they so desire without receiving any salary as of NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. DR. RAMNARESH SHARMA & ORS. [HRISHIKESH ROY, J.]

now. We are inclined to permit the respondents to continue toserve this interim order, since learned counsel for the privaterespondents have stated, on instructions, that in case thepetitioner succeeds, they shall not claim any equity on accountof the fact that they have rendered services under the orderof the Court. The respondents shall remain bound by theirsaid statements.”

7. When the Writ Petition 637/2018 arising out of O.A. 4026/2016of the respondent Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma came up for consideration,the High Court on 23.01.2018 while issuing notice passed an interimorder to the following effect.

“In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order shallremain stayed on the same terms as recorded in the interimorder dated 26.09.2017, passed in W.P.8704/2017”

8. The Writ Petitions challenging the Tribunal’s common orderdated 24.08.2017 were heard analogously and were dismissed affirmingthe Tribunal’s conclusion in favor of the ayurvedic doctors. The Tribunalnoted in its order that although initially the benefit of policy decision ofgovernment to enhance the retirement age was confined to allopathicdoctors but subsequently the policy decision was made applicable toother category doctors (including ayurvedic doctors), covered by AYUSH.Significantly, while the NDMC has adopted the Ministry’s decision butthose ayurvedic doctors of the NDMC who fall in the window between31.05.2016 and 26.09.2017, are deprived of getting the benefit of theenhanced retirement age. In other words, only those retiring on or after27.09.2017, could aspire to serve until 65 years.

9. The High Court in the analogous judgment referred to the caseof Dr. Pratibha Sharma who was employed as an ayurvedic doctor underthe East Delhi Municipal Corporation [‘EDMC’] and observed that heremployer, unlike the NDMC, has not adopted the Government decisiondated 24.11.2017 to enhance the retirement age to 65 years for theAYUSH category doctors. Taking note that Dr. Pratibha Sharma’semployers had not adopted the AYUSH Ministry’s decision dated24.11.2017, it was left open to the EDMC to deal with her case asdeemed appropriate. With such finding and observation, the WPs cameto be dismissed upholding the view taken by the Tribunal in favor of theayurvedic doctors and consequential direction was issued to the NDMCto disburse payment of arrears of salary and allowances to the ayurvedic AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Adoctors, who continue to serve with the NDMC beyond the age of 60years. Specific direction was also issued on their entitlement to salaryand other allowances till they superannuate at the age of 65 years.Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court of Delhi, the presentAppeals are filed.B10. The Respondents in SLP (C) No. 19288/2019 (Dr. BrijeshKumari) and SLP (C) No. 19287/2019 (Dr. Mohd. Ahmed Khan) areAyurvedic and Unani doctors respectively, working under the South DelhiMunicipal Corporation [‘SDMC’]. Dr. Brijesh Kumar was supposed toretire on 31.07.2017 upon attaining age of 60 years, whereas Dr. Mohd.Ahmed Khan was supposed to superannuate on 31.05.2017. Dr. BrijeshCKumar filed O.A. 2503/2017 in the Tribunal, which came to be decidedon 05.09.2017. In its order the Tribunal, relied on its earlier judgment inthe matter of Dr. Santosh Sharma, whereby the respondents were allowedto continue in service till they attain the age of 65 years. Similarly, Dr.Khan’s application came to be decided on 21.09.2017 with likeDconsequences. Aggrieved by these orders, Writ Petitions were preferredby the SDMC impugning the judgments by the Tribunal. These WritPetitions were dismissed by the Delhi High Court on same day i.e.27.03.2019 vide judgments in W.P.(C) No. 1776/2018 and W.P.(C) No.1769/2019. In this Court, the SDMC has averred that the order of AYUSHMinistry dated 24.11.2017 has been adopted by the SDMC on 31.10.2018,Ebut the approval for the same from the House of SDMC, is still pending.Hence, it cannot be said that the SDMC has adopted the order of AYUSHMinistry dated 24.11.2017.

11. The respondent in SLP (C) 24693/2019, Dr. Lata A. Dupare,was working as a dental surgeon under CGHS, Nagpur. Dr. Lata wasFsupposed to retire on 31.05.2016. The Tribunal by an order dated17.11.2017 in O.A. 3795/2017 citing its own judgment in Dr. SantoshSharma, and Dr. H. P. Singh vs. Union of India[1] gave her the benefit ofextended superannuation age. Aggrieved by this order, the Union preferreda W.P.(C) 3210/2019 in the High Court of Delhi which came to beGdismissed on 01.04.2019.

12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellantsand the respondents. Questioning the legality of the impugned decision,Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, learned senior counsel contends that the benefitof enhanced retirement age should have been extended only w.e.f.

H1 O.A. 3321/2016.

27.09.2017 as per the AYUSH Ministry’s decision, as there is limitedscope for interference on a cut-off date, stipulated by the government.The interim order dated 26.09.2017 in W.P. 8704/2017 of the High Courtis read by the counsel to argue that while the respondents were permittedto continue in service beyond 60 years, they are disentitled to claim anyequitable relief by way of arrear of salary on account of the fact thatthey remained in service under interim orders of the court. The financialimplication for the employer is highlighted by the learned senior counselto argue that the appellants should not be burdened with the liability todisburse the unpaid arrear salary to the respondents.

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents arguethat relief to the respondents was granted by the Tribunal and by theHigh Court by concluding that the action of the authorities in treatmentof the allopathic doctors vis-à-vis the ayurvedic doctors wasdiscriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of Constitution. Accordingly, it isargued that there can be no separate service condition in so far as thesuperannuation age is concerned between allopathic and other categorydoctors, particularly when the AYUSH Ministry itself on 24.11.2017 hasenhanced the retirement age for the non-allopathic doctors w.e.f.27.09.2017, in tune with the Ministry’s order dated 31.05.2016.

14. Ld. Sr. Counsel for appellant relied on judgment of this Courtin U. P. State Brasswar Corporation Ltd. and Anr. vs. Uday NarainPandey[2], and argued that while earlier, awarding full arrears of salarywas the practice, under the prevalent pragmatic view of the issue, theCourt should determine the award of back wages based on facts andcircumstances of each case. For the Bench, Justice S. B. Sinha in UdayNarain Pandey (supra) stated that:

“17. Before adverting to the decisions relied upon by thelearned counsel for the parties, we may observe that althoughdirection to pay full back wages on a declaration that theorder of termination was invalid used to be the usual resultbut now, with the passage of time, a pragmatic view of thematter is being taken by the court realizing that an industrymay not be compelled to pay to the workman for the periodduring which he apparently contributed little or nothing atall to it and/ or for a period that was spent unproductively asa result whereof the employer would be compelled to go back 2 (2006) 1 SCC 479

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato a situation which prevailed many years ago, namely, whenthe workman was retrenched.”

15. The above ratio in Uday Narain Pandey (supra) is howevernot attracted to the matters before us, as there is significant differencein the factual matrix. In the cited case, the respondent-worker had notBre-joined or continued his employment after his retirement, and wasasking for wages for work, he did not actually render. Whereas, in thisbunch of cases, it is undisputed that the respondent doctors havecontinuously served in hospitals till attaining the enhanced age ofsuperannuation i.e. 65 years vide the AYUSH Ministry order dated24.11.2017 and by virtue of interim order of the High Court datedC26.09.2017. In other words, they have been productive not only for thepatients but also for their employers.

16. The learned senior counsel for appellant by placing relianceupon the HC interim order submits that respondent doctors are not entitledto remuneration and unpaid arrears as they were serving in the hospitalsDon the strength of the Court’s interim order. Such argument for appellantscannot however be accepted in light of the principle ‘Actus CuriaeNeminem Gravabit’. Explaining the principle, Justice B. S. Chauhanspeaking for this court in Kalabharati Advertising vs. HemantVimalnath Narichania[3], stated the following:

E“15. …The maxim “Actus Curiae neminem gravabit”, whichmeans that the act of the Court shall prejudice no-one,becomes applicable in such a case. In such a situation theCourt is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to aparty by the act of the Court. Thus, any undeserved or unfairFadvantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of theCourt must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannotbe permitted to confer any advantage on a party by thedelayed action of the Court.”

17. Bearing in mind the above legal principle the Interim order ofGDelhi High Court dated 26.09.2017 in our opinion cannot be the basis todeny salary and arrear benefits to respondents. The said interim ordermerged with the final judgment dated 15.11.2018 and all consequentialbenefits of employment were due to the respondents. Therefore, when H3 (2010) 9 SCC 437

the respondents worked and served patients, the basic benefit of salarycannot be denied to the doctors.

18. This Court in case of Central Electricity Supply Utility ofOdisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors.[4], stated that:

“51....Till the declaration is made, the incumbent rendersservice and when he has rendered service he cannot bedeprived of his salary. Denial of pay for the service renderedtantamounts to forced labour which is impermissible. Whenan appointment is admitted and the incumbent functions inthe post and neither suspended nor removed from service, heis entitled to get salary, for it is his legal right and it is theduty of the employer to pay it as per the terms and conditionsof the appointment.…”

The above ratio correctly sets out the employers’ responsibility topay the wages for the productive employees serving under them.

19. In the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority& Anr. vs. B. D. Singhal & Ors.[5], this Court while dealing with acomparable issue, declined to give retrospective application to the U.P.State Government order dated 30[th] September 2012, which extendedthe age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. The arrears ofsalary to respondent employees who had retired on 31[st] August, 2012,upon attaining the age of 58 years was also denied. But that case canhave no application in the present appeals since facts are distinguishable.There are two vital factual differences, which need to be considered.Firstly, the Allahabad High Court retrospectively applied the U.P. StateGovernment order dated 30[th] September 2012, from 29[th] June 2002 i.e.the day on which recommendation for extending the age of superannuationwas made. Whereas, in the case at hand, on 31.05.2016 a notificationwas issued which was expeditiously implemented. Secondly, arrears ofsalary were disallowed, because the respondent-employees in New OkhlaIndustrial Development Authority had not worked even a single dayafter retiring, on attaining 58 years of age. But, in the present case,respondent-doctors have been working continuously without break,pursuant to the Interim order of the Delhi High Court dated 26.09.2017.Hence, based on these two distinguishing aspects, the ratio in New Okhla 4 (2014) 1 SCC 161

5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466, C.A. No. 2311 of 2021

A

BC

DE

F

G

H

AIndustrial Development Authority cannot in our opinion be applicablehere, to defeat the legitimate expectation of the respondents.

20. In these matters, for almost 5 years, the respondent doctorshave been providing service to countless patients, without remunerationor benefits. Their services are utilized by the employer in GovernmentBestablishments, without demur. In this regard, the learned senior counselfor appellant submits that paying arrear unpaid wages to the respondentdoctors will impose substantial financial burden upon the State. Suchsubmission cannot however be countenanced as a fair submission bythe State’s counsel. The principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ protectsemployers from paying their employees if they don’t receive serviceCfrom them. A corollary thereto of ‘No work should go unpaid’ shouldbe the appropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases where theservice rendered by the respondent doctors have been productive bothfor the patients and also the employer. Therefore, we are quite clear inour mind that the respondents must be paid their lawful remuneration-Darrears and current, as the case may be. The State cannot be allowedplead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors.Otherwise it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of theConstitution.

21. In the case of the respondent in SLP (C) 12046/2019 i.e. Dr.EH. P. Singh, it is averred by the appellants, that he has not worked aftersuperannuation on attaining the age of 60 years. But, there is sufficientevidence on record to suggest that the respondent-doctor through severalrepresentations sought to be re-appointed but it was the employer whocreated impediments and did not allow the respondent to re-join his dutiesin hospitals. In such circumstances, the principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’Fcannot be raised by the employers, as it is they who had obstructed thedoctor from discharging his service. For support we may cite DayanandChakrawarthy vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[6] where this Court speakingthrough Justice S. J. Mukhpadhyaya rightly held that:

“48. … If an employee is prevented by the employer fromGperforming his duties, the employee cannot be blamed forhaving not worked, and the principle of “no pay no work”shall not be applicable to such employee.”

22. The common contention of the appellants before us is thatclassification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under CHS in differentcategories is reasonable and permissible in law. This however does notappeal to us and we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunaland the Delhi High Court that the classification is discriminatory andunreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the samefunction of treating and healing their patients. The only difference is thatAYUSH doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda,Unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using Allopathy for tending to theirpatients. In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under theprevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia.Therefore, such unreasonable classification and discrimination based onit would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. Theorder of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 extending the age ofsuperannuation to 65 Years also endorses such a view. This extension isin tune with the notification of Ministry of Health and Family Welfaredated 31.05.2016.

23. The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service topatients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them.Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates forbestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these twocategories of doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D.14019/4/2016-E-I (AYUSH)) dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectivelyapplied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent-doctors, in thepresent appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion.

24. In light of the above discussion, the appellant’s actions in notpaying the respondent doctors their due salary and benefits, while theircounterparts in CHS system received salary and benefits in full, must beseen as discriminatory. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that therespondent-doctors are entitled to their full salary arrears and the sameis ordered to be disbursed, within 8 weeks from today. Belated paymentbeyond the stipulated period will carry interest, at the rate of 6% fromthe date of this order until the date of payment. It is ordered accordingly.The appeals are disposed of in above terms without any order on cost.

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H