Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1691 (RAJ)

Dr. Vedwati Pareek v. State of Rajasthan

2005-06-23

S.K.KESHOTE

body2005
Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-On 29.04.2005, at the request of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, the matter was adjourned to 16.05.2005, as he desired to take instructions therein from the respondents. 2. On 16.05.2005 it was adjourned to 30.05.2005 and then it came up for final hearing on 31.05.2005. 3. On 31.05.2005 the learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri J.K. Agarwal produced for perusal of the Court a Xerox copy of the note-sheet and particularly referred to para No. 80 thereof . 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition. 5. The petitioners, thirteen in number, are Post Graduate students at different Government Ayurveda Colleges in the State; they filed this writ petition on 16th September, 2003 and therein they prayed for issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to grant them equal stipend at Rs. 7600/-per month in the First Year, Rs. 7800/-per month in the Second Year and Rs. 8000/-per month in the Third Year in the Post Graduate Course (Ayurveda), instead of Rs. 1900/-, Rs. 2000/-and Rs. 2100/-per month which they are getting presently as stipend in the First Year, Second Year and Third Year, respectively, in the Post Graduate Course, by quashing and setting aside the order, dated 5th August 1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), with effect from the date of admission in the first year Post Graduate Course (Ayurveda) with all consequential benefits and remaining stipend may be ordered to be given to the petitioners and other similarly situated students from the date it was due with interest @ 18% per annum. 6. The petitioners, after completion of their Graduation Course in Ayurveda, got admission to the Post Graduation Course in Ayurveda. The petitioners submitted that while undergoing the Post Graduation Course in Ayurveda they are required to discharge the duties of Doctors at Ayurveda Hospitals, Clinics and Ausdhalyas. Their grievance is that the State of Rajasthan is paying much less amount as stipend to the PG Students of Ayurveda in comparison to what it is being paid to the PG students in Allopathy. National Institute of Ayurveda, Madhovilas, Jaipur, which is a Government of India establishment, it is urged by the petitioners, is also paying monthly stipend to the PG 1st year students at Rs. 7600/-, 2nd year students at Rs. 7800/-and 3rd year students at Rs. National Institute of Ayurveda, Madhovilas, Jaipur, which is a Government of India establishment, it is urged by the petitioners, is also paying monthly stipend to the PG 1st year students at Rs. 7600/-, 2nd year students at Rs. 7800/-and 3rd year students at Rs. 8000/-. The petitioners are also supposed to discharge the same duties and functions as that of PG students of National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur and only difference is that the Ayurveda College of Udaipur and other places in the State are under the control of the State of Rajasthan whereas the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur is under the control of the Government of India. It is reiterated that the resident Doctors, who are doing various PG courses in various disciplines in Allopathy, are getting the monthly stipend at Rs. 7600/-in the first year, Rs. 7800/-in the second year and Rs. 8000/-in the third year as per the Government Order, dated 16.05.1998. 7. The Government of Rajasthan, under the order, dated 05.08.1998, accorded sanction to enhance the rate of stipend of the PG students of Ayurveda with effect from 01.08.1998 but it was not being at par with the PG students of Allopathy. The petitioners have made the reference to the order, dated 210.2000 (Annexure-4) of the Government of Madhya Pradesh whereunder the PG students of Ayurveda and PG students of Allopathy have been brought at par with regard to the stipend payable. 8. The petitioners have also drawn attention in the writ petition to the fact that in the State of Himachal Pradesh there was similar disparity with regard to the monthly stipend payable to the PG students of Allopathy and the PG students of Ayurveda. There the PG students of Ayurveda filed Civil Writ Petition No. 48/2001 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and that was allowed on 9th February 2002 and this disparity, which the State of Himachal Pradesh was maintaining, has been deprecated by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the same was directed to be brought at par with the stipend being paid to the PG students of Allopathy. 9. Reference has also been made to the order, dated 28.04.2003, of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Contempt Petition No. 31/2002. 9. Reference has also been made to the order, dated 28.04.2003, of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Contempt Petition No. 31/2002. The grievance of the petitioners is that though several times they made their grievance to the State of Rajasthan but it did not pay any heed to it. At last they gave a notice, dated 25.08.2003, for demand of justice through their Counsel but the same was not even acknowledged what to say to give any relief to them, thus this writ petition by the petitioners. 10. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and as usual they contested the claim of the petitioners; the petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply, filed by the respondents, to the writ petition. Alongwith the rejoinder the petitioners produced the copy of the order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the writ petition No. 48/2001. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the approach of the respondents to pay much less monthly stipend to the PG students of Ayurveda as what it is being paid to the PG students of Allopathy, is an attempt on its part to degrade the Ayurveda medicine system in the State. Not only this it is an apparent attempt on the part of the respondents to discourage the students to come to study in Ayurveda Courses at PG level. The learned Counsel for the petitioners gave out that only three treatment systems to the ailed persons of the State are available, namely, Allopathy system Ayurveda system and Homoeopathy system. The tenure of the courses at graduation as well as PG level in the Ayurveda and Allopathy systems are the same. Not only this, the subjects in which the education is imparted to the students at Graduate and PG level in Ayurveda and Allopathy are almost same. Ayurveda, in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, is a basic method of treating to the ailing persons. 12. Further it is contended that the pay scale of the medical officers in Allopathy and Ayurveda is same but the disparity is maintained in the matter of payment of stipend to the PG students in Ayurveda for which there is no justification. 12. Further it is contended that the pay scale of the medical officers in Allopathy and Ayurveda is same but the disparity is maintained in the matter of payment of stipend to the PG students in Ayurveda for which there is no justification. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners it is a clear case of hostile discrimination in the matter of payment of stipend to the PG students of Ayurveda. 13. Concluding his submissions, Shri Rajendra Soni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there is a disparity in the payment of monthly stipend to the PG students of Ayurveda who are doing their course from the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, which is an Institution of the Central Government, and those who are doing their course from the Colleges of the Government of Rajasthan for which there is no justification. 14. On the other hand, Shri J.K. Agarwal, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur is owned by the Central Government and the stipend being paid to the PG students of this Institution cannot be made applicable to the PG students of Ayurveda Colleges owned by the State of Rajasthan. It is next contended that the stipend being paid to the PG students of Ayurveda is provided under Rules, which are made known to the students and they accepted that with open eyes while taking admission and now they cannot back out from what they accepted and to claim stipend at the higher rate. Lastly it is contended that the PG students of Ayurveda and PG students of Allopathy do not constitute one class and thus in case the stipend is paid at different rates to the students of these two different classes, it does not amount to any discrimination what to say an hostile discrimination. 15. In rejoinder to the contentions raised by Shri J.K. Agarwal, the learned Additional Government Advocate, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court have also taken a view that the Post Graduation students of Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda) are entitled the same treatment as is given to the PG students of Allopathy System of Medicines and there cannot be made any discrimination in the matter of grant of stipend. 16. 16. Shri Rajendra Soni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, with all whims at his command, submitted that in the reply to the writ petition the respondents have failed to give out any justification to make this discrimination in the matter of payment of stipend to the PG students of Indian system of Medicines (Ayurveda) and PG students of Allopathy System of Medicines. 17. I have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the Judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Writ Petition No. 48/2001, decided on 09.01.2002. 9.18. Appendix I to the Indian Medicines Central Council (Post Graduation Education) Regulations, 1979 provides for the standards and curriculum for Post Graduation Courses in Ayurveda. It was amended vide notification, dated 15.07.1995 and it is provided that the students should be provided stipend and contingency at the rates prevailing in other States for other medical Post Graduate Students. The relevant portion thereof reads as under, “The stipend and contingency should be provided at the rates prevailing in the State for other medical Postgraduate students. The Council shall regard it an essential facility which should invariably be provided to Post Graduate students in the subjects of Ayurveda.” 19. The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Indian Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy through its communication, dated 13.03.2000, has circulated to all the Institutes/Departments, for necessary action, the recommendations accepted in the meeting of the Secretaries/Directors of the State Government/Union Territories held on 2nd-3rd December, 1999. The recommendations in para No. 13 thereof are as under: “P.G. Education in ISM & H should be promoted. The rate of stipend to the M.D. (ISM & H) students in the State/Central Scheme should be at par with the student of M.D. Allopathy in the States.” 20. Despite of these recommendations of the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Indian Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy, the State of Rajasthan has made to suffer the PG students of Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda) to pay a meager sum as stipend per month. 21. The respondents do not deny the recommendations aforesaid of the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Indian Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy. 22. 21. The respondents do not deny the recommendations aforesaid of the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Department of Indian Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy. 22. I find sufficient merit and justification in the contention of the leaned Counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondents to deny the stipend at the same rate to the PG students of Indian System of Medicines which is being paid to the PG students of Allopathy System of Medicines, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, more-so in view of the Regulations of Council and recommendations of the Government of India. All the systems of Medicines in India, it is not gainsay, are important and each system of medicines has its own benefits and it cannot be said and it is difficult to accept that one system is superior to other. In substance that has been realized and accepted by the Indian Medicines Central Council under its recommendations, the reference of which has already been made in the preceding part of the Judgment that the PG students of Indian Systems of Medicines should be given the stipend prevailing in the State for other medical Postgraduate students of Allopathy System of Medicines. 23. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1014/1999, Dr. Abas Ali Khan vs. Union of India, the High Court of Delhi has held: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the entire scheme of things and under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Center Council Act, 1970 and the directions issued by the Government of India, provisions of the University Grants Commission and considering the role of University Grants Commission, under the aegis of the Central Government, students studying in Indian System of Medicine cannot be treated differently from the students who are studying in the Modern System of Medicine. All systems of Medicines of India are important and these systems are adopted for the public benefit. If the students, studying in different systems, are treated differently in respect of payment of stipend, that will hinder the process of proper education in all the systems. One would gather the impression that the Modern System of Medicine is far superior to the other systems of Medicine. If the students, studying in different systems, are treated differently in respect of payment of stipend, that will hinder the process of proper education in all the systems. One would gather the impression that the Modern System of Medicine is far superior to the other systems of Medicine. The Central Government being in the possession of the over all control of the machinery under the Acts, it has to take effective steps to see that the students are treated without any kind of discrimination. When the students had come forward with a claim of parity, the Central Government should have taken the stand and instructed either the UGC or the State Government concerned to pay the stipend on part with the students of Modern System of Medicine. I am quite unable to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent, Union of India, that it is not concerned with the payment of stipend to students on the Indian System of Medicine. In my view, that is contrary to our Constitutional framework. The principles laid down by this Court in CW 610/97 would squarely govern this case. The Union of India, the University Grants Commission and the NCT of Delhi shall pay stipend, as claimed by the petitioners, through the fourth respondent, Jamia Hamdard University, and this payment shall be made on or before the 30th of June, 2000.” 24. Similarly, in CWP No. 508 of 1991, Dr. Satya Dev Pandey & Ors. vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Medical Education Dept., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow & Ors., the High Court Allahabad at Lucknow, has held: “As indicated above, in some of the States, Post Graduate students of Ayurveda are treated at par with the Post Graduate students of Allopathic and they are paid the same stipend/remuneration. There exists no reason for the State Government to give preferential treatment to the students of Allopathic Medical Colleges and deny the same benefits to the Post Graduate students of Ayurveda undergoing education in Ayurveda Colleges. Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the respondent as to why the Post Graduate students of Ayurveda are not entitled for the same stipend/remuneration, which is being paid to the Post Graduate students of other medical colleges. Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the respondent as to why the Post Graduate students of Ayurveda are not entitled for the same stipend/remuneration, which is being paid to the Post Graduate students of other medical colleges. I am of the view that the petitioners who are students of Post Graduate Course in Ayurveda College, Lucknow are entitled for the same stipend/remuneration, which are being paid to the Post Graduate Students of Allopathy Medical Colleges of the State of U.P. and they deserves to be paid the same stipend/remuneration in accordance with G.O. dated 04.05.1987, as there exists no valid reason or rational basis for such a discrimination. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to pay to the petitioners the same stipend/remuneration which is being paid to the Post Graduate students of Allopathic Medical Colleges in the State of U.P. and also to pay the arrears of stipend/remuneration, which have not been paid to the petitioners, forthwith in the light of the observations made above.” 25. Relying on the aforesaid two decisions, the Himachal Pradesh High Court accepted the Civil Writ Petition No. 48/2001 and directed the respondents therein to pay the petitioner in that matter the same stipend/remuneration, which is being paid to the PG students of Indira Gandhi Medical College. 26. Undisputedly, the PG students of Indian System of Medicines at National Institution of Ayurveda, Jaipur are getting the stipend at par with the PG students of Modern System of Medicines (Allopathy) in the Medical Colleges of the Government of Rajasthan. Thus, the respondents, without any justification on their part, have made to suffer the PG students of Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda) in the matter of stipend. Thus, the respondents, without any justification on their part, have made to suffer the PG students of Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda) in the matter of stipend. If this is allowed to stand, the candidates will not take admission to the PG courses of the Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda) and that it will make distinction in between two systems of medicines i.e., Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda) and Modern System of Medicines (Allopathy) and that it will put the Modern System of Medicines (Allopathy) superior than the Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda), which is an old age medicines system, as well which has not been accepted by the Council and the Union of India the State of Rajasthan has dared and made this distinction in two systems of medicines i.e., Allopathy and Ayurveda by prescribing the rate of stipend for the PG students of Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda) at lower rate than what it is being paid to the PG students of Modern System of Medicines (Allopathy). It is difficult to appropriate what to say to approve the same. 27. From the documents submitted by the Additional Government Advocate for the perusal of the Court I find that the Government also appears to have realized of this discrimination to which it subjected to PG students of Indian System of Medicines in the matter of payment of stipend. 28. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners, who are PG students of Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda), the monthly stipend at Rs. 7600/-for the First Year, Rs. 7800/-for Second Year and Rs. 8000/-for the Third Year alongwith DA thereon if the same is payable to the PG students of Modern System of Medicines (Allopathy). The petitioners shall be entitled for these benefits with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition. The arrears of stipend is to be paid to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioners, though also prayed for grant of interest on the arrears at the rate of 18% per annum, but I do not find any ground to pay any interest to them in their favour. 29. The petitioners, though also prayed for grant of interest on the arrears at the rate of 18% per annum, but I do not find any ground to pay any interest to them in their favour. 29. It is made clear that all other PG students of Indian System of Medicines (Ayurveda) shall be enetitled for the benefits of the stipend at higher rate from the date of this order, irrespective of the fact that they are not before the Court. 30. In the facts of this case, I consider it to be a fit case for awarding the exemplary costs in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. The respondent State of Rajasthan is directed to pay Rs. 1000/-as costs of this writ petition to each petitioner. The amount of costs is also to be paid to the petitioners within the period aforesaid.