Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1418 (KER)

Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Muthukoya P. P

2025-05-23

BASANT BALAJI, NITIN JAMDAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : NITIN JAMDAR, C.J. This petition is filed by the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11 May 2022, allowing the Original Application No.143 of 2021 filed by the Respondents. The Respondents have filed the Original Application seeking a declaration that they are entitled to the enhanced rate of monthly remuneration at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- with effect from 1 November 2017 and also enhancement of the monthly remuneration at par with General Duty Medical Officers with effect from 10 July 2019. 2. The Respondents were appointed pursuant the employment notice issued by the Lakshadweep Administration on contractual basis as Medical Officers, Ayurveda and Homeopathic. The Respondents’ grievance was that the monthly remuneration of the General Duty Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons was enhanced to Rs. 65,000/-, however, the monthly remuneration of the Respondents was not increased correspondingly, even though the post was comparable and claimed with General Duty Medical Officers on the ground that the work done by them is identical to that of the General Duty Medical Officers. 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by the impugned order, accepted the contention of the Respondents based on parity and held that the Respondents are entitled to be treated on par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers. On the question of liability of payment of the increased allowances, the Petitioner Administration took a stand that the payment has to be made by the Central Government under the National Health Mission. While the stand of the Central Government was that it is for the Administration of Union Territory to decide the quantum of remuneration and find funds to meet the burden of enhanced remuneration, if any. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, directed the Petitioner Administration to pay the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- to the Respondents Ayush Medical Officers and dues from 1 November 2017 with interest at the rate of 7.5% if the amount was not paid within four months. Being aggrieved by this direction, the Petitioner Administration has filed this petition. 4. The petition was admitted on 25 November 2022 and interim order was granted staying the operation and execution of the order of the Tribunal. 5. Heard Mr. K.S. Prenjith Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel, Ms. Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Mr. Being aggrieved by this direction, the Petitioner Administration has filed this petition. 4. The petition was admitted on 25 November 2022 and interim order was granted staying the operation and execution of the order of the Tribunal. 5. Heard Mr. K.S. Prenjith Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel, Ms. Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Mr. Sajith Kumar V., learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for Respondent No.8. 6. Reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the Union of India placing reliance on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.8553-8557 of 2014 rendered on 26 April 2023. It is stated in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 as under: “10. It is pertinent to mention that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Gujarat & Ors v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos.8553-8557 of 2014, decided on 26.04.2023 , while adjudicating upon the issue regarding the treating degree of BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery) at par with the doctors holding MBBS degrees and their entitlement to the benefits of the recommendations of the Tikku Pay Commission, the apex court held that: “Therefore, we have no doubt that every alternative system of medicine may have its pride of place in history. But today, the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine do not perform complicated surgical operations. A study of Ayurved does not authorise them to perform these surgeries. Similarly, a post-mortem or autopsy is not carried out by/in the presence of Ayurved doctors. Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the procedure for the police to inquire and report on suicide, etc. Sub-section (3) of Section 174 mandates that the police officer shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe, forward the dead body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, in certain types of cases such as (i) suicide by a woman within seven years of marriage; (ii) death of a woman within seven years of marriage in certain circumstances; and (iii) cases where there are any doubts regarding the cause of death. Section 176 of Cr.P.C deals with inquiry by Magistrates into cause of death. Sub-section (5) of Section 176 uses similar words namely “Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical man”. We do not think that the AYUSH doctors are normally notified as competent to perform post-mortem. It is common knowledge that during out- patient days (OPD) in general hospitals in cities/town, MBBS doctors are made to attend to hundred of patients, which is not the case with Ayurved doctors. Therefore, even while recognizing the importance of Ayurved doctors and the need to promote alternative/indigenous systems of medicine, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay. 11. In view of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is respectfully submitted that similar pay scale as applicable to the Allopathic doctors may not be accorded to the BAMS Doctors, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed qua the answering respondent and Hon’ble Court may pass any other or further orders as it may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 7. It is the contention of the Respondents that the position of law laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, at present in Lakshadweep is clear. The Respondents are carrying out the same work as the General Duty Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers. The Respondents are entitled to the principle of parity and consequently, the same remuneration as General Duty Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers. However the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the question of parity between two posts are concerned, it is against the Respondents. If the Respondents wish to advance contention on the basis of factual position, statement so prevalent, adequate pleadings to that effect. Such pleadings are not found in the Original Application, neither this aspect is argued before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Respondents makes a prayer that an opportunity be given to the Respondents to demonstrate that despite the law laid down in view of the current factual position, the principle of parity because of the faction position be extended. 8. Considering the above position, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 11 May 2022 is quashed and set aside. 8. Considering the above position, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 11 May 2022 is quashed and set aside. The Original Application No.143 of 2021 is restored to the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. It is open to the Respondents to apply for necessary amendments only to the above purpose. However, by this liberty, we have not concluded on the issue that even after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors., the Respondents are entitled to relief, as it is for the Tribunal to decide the same after hearing both sides. 9. The Original Petition is disposed of in above terms..