No Parity for Ayurvedic/AYUSH Doctors with MBBS Doctors, Says Supreme Court

In that ruling, it was held that allopathic doctors and practitioners of indigenous medicine cannot be deemed to perform equal work
The Supreme Court of India recently reiterated that practitioners of Ayurvedic and AYUSH medicine cannot claim equality with medical doctors. (Wikimedia Commons)
The Supreme Court of India recently reiterated that practitioners of Ayurvedic and AYUSH medicine cannot claim equality with medical doctors. (Wikimedia Commons)Legaleagle86 at en.wikipedia
Published on

The Supreme Court of India recently reiterated that practitioners of Ayurvedic and AYUSH medicine cannot claim equality with medical doctors. This observation was made while dismissing a special leave petition, with the Court emphasizing the significant differences in academic qualifications and the standards of education between the respective disciplines.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked, “Considering the qualitative distinction in academic qualifications and the standard of imparting the respective degree courses, we are satisfied that Ayurvedic or AYUSH doctors serving in the State of Kerala cannot claim parity with medical doctors.”

Considering the qualitative distinction in academic qualifications and the standard of imparting the respective degree courses, we are satisfied that Ayurvedic or AYUSH doctors serving in the State of Kerala cannot claim parity with medical doctors.

Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan

To support their conclusion, the bench referred to an earlier judgment in the case of State of Gujarat and Others v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Others. In that ruling, it was held that allopathic doctors and practitioners of indigenous medicine cannot be deemed to perform equal work. Consequently, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" could not be applied in such cases, as the nature and scope of their professional duties are distinct.

The judgment reinforced that parity in employment terms, such as retirement age, must be based on comparable qualifications and responsibilities. (Representational Image: Pixabay)
The judgment reinforced that parity in employment terms, such as retirement age, must be based on comparable qualifications and responsibilities. (Representational Image: Pixabay)
Consequently, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" could not be applied in such cases, as the nature and scope of their professional duties are distinct.

The Court referenced the decision in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others. In this matter, it was determined that an employee of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), operating under the Ministry of AYUSH, could not automatically claim the same retirement age as AYUSH doctors.

In this matter, it was determined that an employee of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), operating under the Ministry of AYUSH, could not automatically claim the same retirement age as AYUSH doctors.

This was despite the employee being involved in treating patients in both outpatient (OPD) and inpatient (IPD) departments.

(Rehash/Sai Sindhuja K/MSM)

The Supreme Court of India recently reiterated that practitioners of Ayurvedic and AYUSH medicine cannot claim equality with medical doctors. (Wikimedia Commons)
Video of Patient Playing Video Game During Surgery Goes Viral

Related Stories

No stories found.
logo
Medbound
www.medboundtimes.com