In a ruling on January 2, 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of stipend disparity between Post Graduate (PG) students in Ayurveda and Allopathy streams. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta set aside the earlier judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, asserting that PG students in Ayurveda do not perform identical duties as their counterparts in Allopathy, thereby rejecting claims of discrimination in stipend allocation.

The legal battle emerged when students from Ayurveda challenged the apparent discrimination in stipend despite claiming to fulfill similar duties as Allopathy PG students. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its November 19, 2019, verdict, had sided with the Ayurveda students, arguing that the state failed to establish a distinction between the two categories of students. The High Court issued a mandamus, directing the state to treat Ayurveda PG students on par with Allopathy PG students regarding stipend allocation.

The Supreme Court, however, observed that duties performed by Ayurveda PG students cannot be equated with those of Allopathy PG students. The judgment cited the precedent set in the case of 'State of Gujarat and Others Vs Dr P A Bhatt and Others' (2023), highlighting that the nature of responsibilities in Ayurveda and Allopathy streams differs significantly.

The court reiterated its stance on recognizing the importance of Ayurveda but emphasized that both categories of doctors do not undertake equal work, thereby negating the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The State government, defending its position, argued that there had been a revision of stipends for both streams, minimizing the differences between the allocations for Ayurveda and Allopathy PG students. Additionally, the State maintained that the High Court's judgment was rendered obsolete by the Supreme Court's previous ruling on the matter.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision on January 2, 2024, has upheld the principle that the duties performed by PG students in Ayurveda are not equivalent to those in Allopathy, justifying the disparity in stipend allocation. This ruling brings clarity to the distinction between the two streams, recognizing the unique responsibilities each field entails. It also underscores the importance of considering the specific nature of work when addressing issues of pay parity in the field of medical education.

Case:  The State of MP And Others vs. Vijay Kumar Tiwari And Others,

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.105   of 2024] Diary No.20723 of 2021. 

Click to Read/Download Judgement