Disparity in Doctors pay for Compulsory urban service: Karnataka HC asks state to respond

Written by Sanchari Chattopadhyay Published On 2020-11-05T18:02:56+05:30 | Updated On 5 Nov 2020 12:32 PM GMT

Disparity in Doctors pay for Compulsory urban service: Karnataka HC asks state to respond

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government and the other concerned authorities to file their response within two weeks in a case filed by 5 doctors alleging disparity in payscale for compulsory one-year Urban service.This came after the petitioners found that they are being paid less than one of the doctors appointed in the same post following...

This came after the petitioners found that they are being paid less than one of the doctors appointed in the same post following the Karnataka Compulsory Training Service By Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act 2012 (KCS Act).

The Petitioners have completed their Super Specialty (DM/MCh) in different subjects in the year 2019 from their respective institutions affiliated to the RGUHS. The Petitioners are graduates in Medicine (MBBS) and have also completed their post graduation (MD/MS) in different specialities and are registered as practitioners in their respective specialities with the Karnataka Medical Council.

Also Read:Compulsory Urban Service: Karnataka HC grants interim relief to 281 doctors, questions plea

The State Government enacted the Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 and the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates completed Medical Courses Rules, 2015 inter alia prescribing to the Graduate, Post Graduate and Super Specialty Graduate Medical students, a compulsory service of one year in Government Hospitals and health centres.

The Petitioners, after completion of their respective DM Super Specialty courses in the year 2019, sought for registration in their respective super specialities, under the Karnataka Medical Registration Act. At that time, the KCS act was already challenged by a group of petitioners in the high court and the court issued an interim relief directing the state government not to impose the act on the 281 doctors.

The Petitioners, though, had all the requisite documents for registration, and despite the fact that the operation of the 2012 Act stayed during the relevant period of their admissions were refused registration and were directed by the authorities to obtain a NOC in respect of "compulsory one-year service/rural service completion." (as per the 2012 Act)

The state government allotted them posts in September 2019 and their pay scale as indicated in the respective orders of appointment is rupees 55000 per month. The pay scale of the Petitioners, who have been appointed under Section 5 of the 2012 Act, has been unilaterally and arbitrarily fixed, without adherence to the provisions of the 2012 Act.

The Petitioners, who raised objections in this regard at the very time of their appointment, was surprised to find that the pay scale of one doctor, who is also appointed as per 2012 Act, to the Department of Anaesthesia to the very same post as these Petitioners is receiving Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Only).

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 5 of the 2012 Act, stipulates that every candidate undergoing compulsory service after completing Super Specialty Course, "shall be paid such a stipend as maybe prescribed equal to hundred rupees less then minimum of gross salary of specialist of Health and Family Welfare Department". Further, in addition to the basic pay at the minimum of Rs.67,550, a dearness allowance thereon is to be paid and senior specialist is also paid House Rent.

The Petitioners submitted that they are entitled to be paid all these amounts that are paid to a Senior Specialist with nominal deduction of Rupees One Hundred Only on the gross salary, therefore the condition imposed in orders of appointment stipulating the stipend at Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only per month is not only discriminatory and arbitrary but also contrary to Section 5 of the Act.

They further added that the fixation of Petitioners' salary at Rupees Fifty Five Thousand per month is arbitrary, in violation of their constitutional rights and is also against the provisions of the Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012.

Live Law reports that after this the Court has directed the state government as well as the other respondents connected with the case to file their statement of objections to the petition within two weeks.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-141831.pdf

Source : with inputs

Sanchari Chattopadhyay

Sanchari Chattopadhyay has pursued her M.A in English and Culture Studies from the University of Burdwan, West Bengal. She likes observing cultural specificities and exploring new places.