Kamlesh Sharma, A.C.J.
1. Petitioners are the students of three year Post-Graduate Ayurveda Vachaspati/MD/MS Course in the Himachal Pradesh Govt. Institute of Post-Graduate Education and Research in Ayurveda Paprola, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra [hereinafter called 'the Institute') . Their grievance is that they are not being paid the amount of stipend at the rate at, which it is paid to the Post-Graduate students of Indira Gandhi Medical College and they have prayed for the following reliefs :
i) Direct the respondents to pay the petitioners stipend at the rate of rupees 7300/-per month for Ist year course, rupees 7600/-for 2nd year course and rupees 7800/- for 3rd year course similar to those payable in the Indira Gandhi Medical College for Graduate Students in Allopathy or at the rates which may be revised from time to time;
ii) Direct the respondents to pay the petitioners stipend from the dates of their admission along with Interest at the rate of 12% per annum.'
2. It is not in dispute that the Institute is being run by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and permission to run the same has been granted by the Central Council of Indian Medicines, Institutional Area, Janakpuri, New Delhi (hereinafter called 'the Council') to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as also the Himachal Pradesh University. The Ayurveda Vachaspati/MD/MS Course in Kayachikitsa was started In theInstitute from the session 1998-99, with effect from December, 1998 with six students and in Shalya Tantra speciality from the session 1999-2000 with effect from March, 2000, with intake capacity of four students and by letter dated 24-8-2000, the permission for conducting Ayurveda Vachaspati/ MD/MS Courses has been extended for the year 2000-2001 to all the three courses, i.e., Kayachikitsa, Shalya and Shalakya, with intake capacity of six, four and four students, respectively. The prospectus issued by the University on behalf of the Institute provides for the payment of stipend. Appendix-1 to the Indian Medicines Central Council (Post-Graduate Education) Regulations, 1979 provides for the standards and curriculum for Post-Graduate courses in Ayurveda. It was amended vide notification dated 15-7-1995, Annexure R-I to the reply of the Council, and under the heading 'Facilities for Post-Graduate Students', in the Appendix, it is provided that the students should be provided stipend and contingency at the rates prevailing in the State for other medical post-graduate students. It is :
'The stipend and contingency should be provided at the rates prevailing in the State for other medical post-graduate students. The council shall regard it an essential facility which should invariably be provided to post-graduate students in the subjects of Ayurveda.'
3. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy through its communication dated 13-3-2000 has circulated to all the Institutes/Departments, for necessary action, the recommendations accepted in the meeting of the Secretaries/Directors of the State Governments/Union Territories held on 2-3rd December, 1999. The recomendations in paragraph 13 are :
'P. G. Education in ISM&H; should be promoted, The rate of stipend to the M,D, (ISM&H;) students in the State/Central Scheme should be at par with the student of M.D. Allopathy in the States,'
4. Despite this, the rates of stipend given to the Post-Graduate students in the Institute are very low as compared to the rates of stipend given to the students of Allopathy in Indira Medical College. These are :
Rates at RGGAC Paprola
I.G.M.C. Shimla
a) Internes
1000/- P.M. 3800/- P.M.
b) House Surgeons
2000/- P.M. 6300/- P.M.
c) P. G. students
1st year :
2500/- P.M. 7300/- P.M.
2nd year :
2800/- P.M. 7600/- P.M.
3rd year :
2800/- P.M. 7800/- P.M.
5. Even the internes and House Surgeons in I.G.M.C. are paid stipend at a higher rate of Rs. 3800/- and Rs. 6300/- per month, respectively as compared to the Post-Graduate students in Ayurveda who are paid Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 2800/-, respectively.
6. It is not denied by the Institute and the State of H. P., respondents 4 and 5, respectively in their reply-affidavit that the duties and responsibilities which the petitioners are required to perform are similar to those being performed by the students in I.G.M.C., Shimla. However, their stand is that the Post-Graduate Classes amongst Kayachikitsa. Shalya and Shalakya specialities have been started in the Institute under Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Upgradation of Teaching Departments for Post-Graduate Training and Research in ISM and the rates of stipend being given to the petitioners were specified by the Govt. of India while conveying the sanction of grant-in-aid vide letter dated 26-9-1997, Annexure R-2 to the reply of the Institute and the State, and all the Post-graduates students are being paid the stipend as per the said rates. The Institute and the State of H. P. have shown their inability to enhance the rate of stipend. However, they have placed on record the letter dated 16-5-2000, Annexure R-5, whereby the Institute has recommended the case for enhancement of stipend of Post-Graduate students to the level of rates being paid to the P.G. students of Indira Gandhi Medical College.
7. The petitioners have placed on record, Annexures P-10 and P-11 to show that in the State of U.P. as also New Delhi Administration, the Post-Graduate students in Ayurveda are being paid similar stipend/ scale as is being paid to the Post-Graduate students in Allopathic Medical Colleges. The petitioners had also made their demand of stipend at the rate equivalent to the rate of stipend being paid to the students of Indira Gandhi Medical College by various representations, Annexures P-12 to P-17, but withno result. Hence, the present petition.
8. Respondent No. 1, Union of India and respondent No. 2. the council are represented by the Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel. Despite opportunities granted, no reply-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Union of India; whereas in the reply-affidavit filed on behalf of the Council, the claim of the petitioners has not been denied. Referring to the provisions of Appendix to its Regulations, which are reproduced hereinabove, it is reiterated that the stipend being provided to the Post-Graduate students of Allopathy should also be provided to the Post-Graduate students of Ayurveda. So far the Institute and the State of H.P. are concerned, as already discussed herein-above, they have passed the buck on to the Central Govt. for the reason that the Post-Graduate courses in the Institute are being run under the scheme of Up-gradation of Teaching Departments for Postgraduate Training and Research in ISM and the rates of stipend have been prescribed in the letters conveying sanction of grant-in-aid, hence it is for the Central Government to revise the rates of stipend for which the recommendations have already been made by them to the Central Government.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the action of the respondents to deny the same amount of stipend as is being paid to their counterparts in the allopathic system of medicine, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be struck down, moreso in view of the regulations of the Council and, recommendations of the concerned authorities. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General for the Institute and the State, and the learned counsel for the Council, have reiterated their stand in the reply-affidavit(s) filed by them and have submitted that the ball is in the Court of Central Government, who is to revise the rates of stipend as the Postgraduate courses are being run in the Institute under the scheme sponsored by the Central Government. Learned Advocate General has prayed that directions be issued to the Union of India only in this regard.
10. After giving our best consideration to the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no justification fordiscriminating the post graduate students of Indian System of Medicine vis-a-vis the students of Allopathic System of Medicine, as they are admittedly similarly situated in performing their duties and responsibility. All systems of medicine in India are important and each system of medicine has its own benefits and it cannot be said that one system is superior to the other. Realising this fact, the Council in its recommendations has already prescribed that the postgraduate students of Ayurveda should be given the stipend at the rate prevailing in the State for other medical postgraduate students. In the meeting of the Secretaries/Directors of the State Governments/Union Territories held on 2nd December, 1999, recommendations were accepted that the stipend to the MD students of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy in the State/Central Scheme should be at par with the students of MD allopathy in the State and the Government of India vide its office Memo, dated March 13, 2000, Annexure P-3, sought the action taken report on these recommendations from all the Research Councils/Institutions/Subordinate offices under the Departments which shows that the Govt. of India has accepted/endorsed these recommendations. Therefore, even if the Union of India has not filed reply-affidavit to the writ petition despite grant of opportunities, it cannot take a different stand after accepting/endorsing the recommendations accepted in the meeting of the Secretaries/ Directors held on 2nd December, 1999.
11. In this view of the matter, we hold that the postgraduate students of the Institute cannot be treated differently in respect of payment of stipend than the post-graduate students of allopathy medical colleges, as the same would hamper the process of education in Indian System of Medicine, which will not be in the interest of public.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to two judgments of Delhi High Court and High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow in which while dealing with the similar situation, the Courts have held that the postgraduate students of Indian System of Medicine are entitled to the same treatment as is given to the postgraduate students of Allopathic System of Medicine and they cannot be discriminated in the matter of grant of stipend. We take support from these judgments. These are :
13. In C.W.P. No. 1014 of 1999 Reported in (2000) 85 DLT 803 Dr. Abbas Ali Khan v. Union of India, the High Court of Delhi has held :
'Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the entire scheme of things and under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Centre Council Act, 1970 and the directions issued by the Government of India, provisions of the University Grants Commission and considering the role of University Grants Commission, under the aegis of the Central Government, students studying in Indian System of Medicine cannot be treated differently from the students who are studying in the Modern System of Medicine. All systems of Medicines in India are important and these systems are adopted for the public benefit. If the students studying in different systems are treated differently in respect of payment of stipend, that will hinder the process of proper education in all the systems. One would gather the impression that the Modern System of Medicine is far superior to the other systems of Medicine. The Central Government being in the possession of the over all control of the machinery under the Acts, it has to take effective steps to see that the students are treated without any kind of discrimination. When the students had come forward with a claim of parity, the Central Government should have taken the stand and instructed either the UGC or the State Government concerned to pay the stipend on par with the students of Modern System of Medicine. I am quite unable to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the first respondent, Union of India, that it is not concerned with the payment of stipend to students on the Indian System of Medicine. In my view, that is contrary to our Constitutional frame work. The principles laid down by this Court in CW 610/97 would squarely govern this case.
The Union of India, the University Grants Commission and the NCT of Delhi shall pay stipend, as claimed by the petitioners, through the fourth respondent, Jamia Hamdard University, and this payment shall be made on or before the 30th of June, 2000.'
14. Similarly in CWP No. 508 of 1991, Dr. Satya Dev Pandey v. State of U. P. through Secretary, Medical Education Dept., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow has held :
'As indicated above, in some of the States, Post-Graduate students of Ayurveda are treated at par with the Post-Graduate students of Allopathic and they are paid the same stipend/remuneration. There exists no reason for the State Government to give preferential treatment to the students of Allopathic Medical Colleges and deny the same benefits to the Post-Graduate students of Ayurveda undergoing education in Ayurveda Colleges. Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the respondent as to why the Post-Graduate students of Ayurveda are not entitled for the same stipend/remuneration which is being paid to the Post-Graduate students of other medical colleges. I am of the view that the petitioners who are students of Post-Graduate Course in Ayurveda College, Lucknow are entitled for the same stipend/remuneration, which is being paid to the Post-Graduate students of Allopathy Medical Colleges of the State of U. P. and they deserve to be paid the same stipend/remuneration in accordance with G.O. dated 4-5-1987, as there exists no valid reason or rational basis for such a discrimination.
In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to pay to the petitioners the same stipend/remuneration which is being paid to the Post-Graduate students of Allopathic medical colleges in the State of U.P. and also to pay the arrears of stipend/remuneration, which have not been paid to the petitioners, forthwith in the light of the observations made above.'
15. In the end, we cannot accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the facts and circumstances on record, only the Government of India may be given direction to revise the rates of stipend of Post-Graduate students of Ayurveda to the level of the rates of Post-Graduate students of Indira Gandhi Medical College, as in our opinion, it is the joint responsibility of the respondents to see that the Post-Graduate students of one system of medicine are not discriminated against vis-a-vis the Post-Graduate students of another system of medicine.
16. Therefore, the writ petition is allowedwith costs and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioners the same stipend/remuneration which is being paid to the Post-Graduate students of Indira Gandhi Medical College. The arrears of stipend will be paid within a period of eight weeks. The counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 5000/-.