P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Heigrujam Wanglensana and Ors. Vs. The State of Manipur and Ors. - (High Court of Manipur) (02 Apr 2019)

There is no bar or prohibition on payment of equal pay despite difference as regards duties and responsibilities but it depends upon wisdom of State Government

MANU/MN/0022/2019

Service

By the instant writ petition, the Petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus to maintain a parity of pay between the AYUSH doctors and the allopathic doctors working in the State Health Mission Society, Manipur under the NRHM on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The short question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the AYUSH doctors are entitled to the same pay being given to the allopathic doctors on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'

In the Manipur Health services Rules, 1982 as amended in the year, 2015, both the AYUSH doctors and the allopathic doctors have been shown in the same grades and they are allowed to draw the same salary under the provisions of Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010. The said rules are made by the expert body after taking into account all relevant factors and even the nature of duties and responsibilities to be performed by both the AYUSH doctors and the allopathic doctors.

Moreover, the Government of India wrote the letter dated 3rd January, 1991 to the States/UTs that, it accepted the recommendation of the Central Council of Homeopathy and that no disparity in the pay scales was maintained amongst the physicians belonging to different systems of medicine and having completed a degree course.

There is no bar or prohibition on payment of equal pay despite difference as regards the duties and responsibilities but it depends upon the wisdom of the State Government. It is the State Government which has not taken keen interest towards the payment of equal pay to the AYUSH and allopathic doctors. The State Government being an institution, ought to act fairly and reasonably and to see that they are treated equally keeping in mind the provisions.

The State Government and in particular, the Respondent No. 3, the State Health Mission Society directed to consider the cases of the AYUSH doctors and take appropriate steps to ensure that, they are treated equally with the allopathic doctors as regards the payment of their pay. Appeal disposed off.

Tags : PAY SCALE   PARITY   MAINTAINABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved