Ayurveda doctors not entitled to equal pay as allopathy doctors: SC junks appeal seeking withdrawal of earlier order

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain applications that sought withdrawal of its earlier judgment holding that Ayurveda doctors cannot claim equal pay as allopathy doctors.

However, the top court bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal kept the option of filing a review petition against the decision open.

Further, the Apex Court also adjourned the hearing of an application filed by the National Commission for Indian Systems of Medicine (NCISM), which sought modifications of the judgment dated 26.04.2023. The top court bench had adjourned the hearing of this application till the disposal of the review petition.

"Miscellaneous Application No. 26128/2023 (National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) will await the decision of the review petition. It is also open to him to file a review petition if advised," the Court observed.

Apart from this, the top court bench also allowed the Medical Officers Association (Ayurveda) Gujarat to withdraw its writ petition on the ground that a review petition against the concerned order is pending.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that in the concerned judgment dating back to April 2023, the Apex Court bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal set aside the Gujarat High Court order which had held that Ayurveda practitioners should be treated at par with doctors with MBBS degrees.

Referring to the difference in workload between the Ayurveda practitioners and the allopathic doctors, the Supreme Court bench had opined that the Ayurveda practitioners were not entitled to equal pay with the practitioners of modern medicine.

Back then, the top court bench had referred to the fact that allopathic practitioners deal with a greater number of patients, perform emergency duties and complicated surgeries, as opposed to the Ayurveda practitioners.

Also Read: Ayurveda doctors do not perform complicated surgeries, not entitled to equal pay as MBBS doctors: Supreme Court

However, challenging the previous order, the Medical Officers Association (Ayurveda), State of Gujarat approached the top court bench. Several miscellaneous applications were also moved by different affected persons including the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM), seeking modifications of the judgment dated 26.04.2023.

As per the latest media report by Live Law, initially, the counsel for NCISM, the Attorney General of India, expressed concern about certain observations in the judgments. At this outset, Justice Abhay S Oka mentioned, “If we grant relief, it will be contrary to the judgment which you have attached. “Property demands that we should not hear this until the reconsideration decision is taken.”

Therefore, the bench questioned the filing of the reconsideration. Responding to this, the Attorney General clarified that the institution had not filed the reconsideration as it was not a party to the main proceedings.

“Ultimately it comes down to reconsideration.” We will just say that it will be listed after hearing the reconsideration. You can apply to club this petition there,” suggested the bench.

Following this, an amendment application filed by Ayurvedic doctors who retired in 2008 was discussed and Justice Abhay S Oka objected to considering the amendment request.

At this outset, the Judge asked, “How can you apply? You are coming with an amendment. We have a fundamental objection to this amendment. You feel that you have no case in reconsideration, so you come with the amendment. We will not consider this application. This practice must stop. You thus apply for amendment of a decision concluded?”

Responding to this, the counsel for the petitioners contended that the decision was final and the reconsideration was not contemplated and they were going forward with the revision request on the basis of three points.

Taking note of this, Justice Abhay S Oka clarified, "On the basis of principles, we will not modify whatever can be done in the review."

When the senior advocate informed the bench that a review was filed, Justice Oka questioned about the parties involved. Responding to this, the advocate stated, “Those 56 persons are Ayurvedic doctors who were in service, they have retired in 2008.”

Thereafter, the bench questioned, "Was he before the court when the judgment was pronounced?"

When the lawyer replied in affirmative, the top court bench expressed concern over his eligibility to apply for amendment and observed, “That is the problem. How can they apply for amendment? Someone who wasn't there, we can understand."

At this juncture, the senior advocate suggested the bench that the matter be kept for reconsideration. Moving forward, the counsel for the Medical Officers Association, Mr. SP Singh, sought to address the concerns in the decision.

Responding to this, the bench questioned, "What you want is review under the guise of Article 32 petition, then we will reject it."

Thereafter, the lawyer offered to withdraw the application when the review petition was heard. However, Justice Oka insisted, "No, it cannot be conditional." Following this, the lawyer requested the bench to withdraw the plea.

Also Read: Ayurveda Doctors to be paid equal to Allopathy Doctors: Supreme Court