Equal pay ordered for MBBS Ayurveda doctors

AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court directed the state government to treat Ayurveda doctors serving in government hospitals equal to those having MBBS degree in terms of giving higher pay scales. There are 317 doctors in government hospitals and dispensaries across the state having Ayurved degrees. They will get equal rise in pay scales henceforth, said their counsel Nirav Majmudar.

Since medical officers having only MBBS degree did not have promotional avenues, the Centre adopted rules that they should be given higher pay scale at certain point of time in their services in lieu of promotion. The Centre accepted such recommendations by Tikku commission and introduced a scheme for higher pay scale. Later, the state government too accepted these suggestions in 1994, but only with regard to the medical officers having MBBS degree.

Since the state government deny this benefit to non-MBBS doctors, majority of them having degrees in Ayurveda, their association as well as some doctors in their individual capacity moved the high court in 2009. A single-judge bench asked the state government to pay the Ayurveda doctors at par with the MBBS doctors.

This was not acceptable to the state government and it challenged the order before a division bench, saying that the Ayurveda doctors too are medical officer of class II. The state government contended that the benefit of higher pay scale was meant for general duty medical officer, and it cannot be extended to Ayurvedic doctors. In a rebuttal, advocate Majmudar contended that those having MBBS degrees prescribe and use allopathic medicine, while these doctors practise Ayurved in government hospital. As they work in similar conditions, the government cannot discriminate against one set of employees merely because they do not possess certain degree.

The division bench accepted the Ayurveda doctors’ contention

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Equal-pay-ordered-for-MBBS-Ayurveda-doctors/articleshow/28977271.cms

Judgement : http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=204102352000