LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

State of Gujarat & Ors. Etc. vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt & Ors. Etc.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 434Decided 26 Apr 2023
Civil Appeal Nos. 8553-8557 of 2014
V. Ramasubramanian · Pankaj Mithal

Background

Doctors holding a BAMS (Ayurvedic medicine) degree, employed by the State of Gujarat, claimed they should get the same higher pay scales as MBBS (allopathic) doctors under the recommendations of the "Tikku Pay Commission," which had originally been meant only for allopathic doctors. Gujarat's High Court (Single Judge and then Division Bench) ruled in favour of the Ayurvedic doctors, holding both categories belonged to the same cadre and performed the same duties, so denying them equal pay was discriminatory. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, and connected contempt petitions were also filed alleging the State had not complied with an earlier interim payment order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that classification of employees for pay purposes based on differing educational qualifications is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14 or 16, relying on a long line of precedent including Dr. C. Girijambal, Mewa Ram Kanojia and Shyam Babu Verma. On the factual question of "equal work," the Court examined a Government-furnished comparative chart showing Allopathy doctors perform emergency duty, trauma care, surgery, IV injections and post-mortems, none of which Ayurvedic doctors are trained or authorised to perform, and concluded the two categories are not doing equal work despite both treating patients. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the State's appeals, dismissed the writ petitions and the connected contempt petitions, and, while ordinarily reluctant to claw back money already paid under an interim court order, permitted the State to recover the interim benefits already disbursed to the Ayurvedic doctors, since only some of them had received it and it could not be retained once the final outcome went against them.

Lesson Learnt

"Equal pay for equal work" is not a mechanical rule; even employees within a common cadre performing broadly similar patient-care roles can lawfully be paid differently if their qualifications, permitted scope of practice, and actual duties genuinely differ, and money received under a purely interim court order can be recovered if the litigant ultimately loses the case.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case