LexNORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus DR. RAM NARESH SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 79 NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. DR. RAM NARESH SHARMA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2021) AUGUST 03, 2021 [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Service law: Age of superannuation – Ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH – Benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years along with renumeration like allopathic doctors – Entitlement to – Tribunal holding that the applicants-ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), just like the allopathic doctors – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: Applicants have continuously served in hospitals till attaining the enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 65 years vide the AYUSH Ministry order dated 24.11.2017 and by virtue of interim order of the High Court – Principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ would not be applicable – Service rendered by the applicant-doctors having been productive both for the patients and also the employer, the basic benefit of salary cannot be denied to the doctors – Government not paying the applicants their due salary and benefits, while their counterparts in CHS received salary and benefits in full, is discriminatory – State cannot plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors, else it would violate their rights u/ Arts. 14, 21 and 23 – Thus, applicants entitled to their lawful remuneration-arrears –Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 21 and 23. Constitution of India: Art. 14 – Classification and intelligible differentia – Classification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under Central Health Scheme in different categories – Held: Is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients – Only difference is the mode of treatment which does not qualify as an intelligible differentia – Thus, such unreasonable classification and discrimination, inconsistent with Art. 14 – Further, no rational justification for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors [2021] 8 S.C.R. 79 79 A B C D E F G H 80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R. – Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 to be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned AYUSH doctors. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Bearing in mind the legal principle maxim “Actus Curiae neminem gravabit”, which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, the Interim order of Delhi High Court dated 26.09.2017 cannot be the basis to deny salary and arrear benefits to respondents. The said interim order merged with the final judgment dated 15.11.2018 and all consequential benefits of employment were due to the respondents. Therefore, when the respondents worked and served patients, the basic benefit of salary cannot be denied to the doctors. [Para 17][88-G- H; 89-A] Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania (2010) 9 SCC 437 : [2010] 10 SCR 971 – relied on. 1.2 In these matters, for almost 5 years, the respondent doctors have been providing service to countless patients, without remuneration or benefits. Their services are utilized by the employer in Government establishments, without demur. The principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ protects employers from paying their employees if they don’t receive service from them. A corollary thereto of ‘No work should go unpaid’ should be the appropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases where the service rendered by the respondent doctors have been productive both for the patients and also the employer. Therefore, the respondents must be paid their lawful remuneration-arrears and current, as the case may be. The State cannot be allowed plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors. Otherwise it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. [Para 20][90-A-E] 1.3 In the case of the respondent in SLP (C) 12046/2019 i.e. Dr. H.P. Singh, it is averred by the appellants, that he has not worked after superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years. But, there is sufficient evidence on record to suggest that the respondent-doctor through several representations sought to be A B C D E F G H 81 re-appointed but it was the employer who created impediments and did not allow the respondent to re-join his duties in hospitals. In such circumstances, the principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ cannot be raised
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.