The News Caravan

Tag: Entitled

  • Ayurveda practitioners not entitled to same pay as doctors with MBBS degrees, says SC

    Ayurveda practitioners not entitled to same pay as doctors with MBBS degrees, says SC

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that practitioners of alternative systems of medicine such as Ayurveda are not entitled to equal pay with allopathic doctors as they not are involved in performing emergency duties and complicated surgeries.

    Setting aside a Gujarat High Court order, the top court said the emergency duty that allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are able to provide cannot be performed by Ayurveda practitioners.

    It noted that even post-mortem or autopsy is not carried out by Ayurveda practitioners.

    MS Education Academy

    The apex court was hearing a batch of appeals challenging a 2012 Gujarat High Court order which had held that Ayurveda practitioners are entitled to be treated at par with doctors with MBBS degrees.

    While recognising the importance of Ayurveda practitioners and the need to promote alternative or indigenous systems of medicine, the top court said that it cannot be oblivious of the fact that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay.

    A bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal said allopathy doctors are required to perform emergency duties and provide trauma care.

    “By the very nature of the science that they practise and with the advancement of science and modern medical technology, the emergency duty that allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are capable of providing cannot be performed by Ayurveda doctors,” it said.

    The apex court said it is also not possible for Ayurveda practitioners to assist surgeons performing complicated surgeries while doctors with MBBS degrees can perform the task.

    “We shall not be understood to mean as though one system of medicine is superior to the other. It is not our mandate nor within our competence to assess the relative merits of these two systems of medical sciences. As a matter of fact, we are conscious that the history of Ayurveda dates back to several centuries.

    “We have no doubt that every alternative system of medicine may have its pride of place in history. But today, the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine do not perform complicated surgical operations. A study of Ayurveda does not authorise them to perform these surgeries. Similarly, a post-mortem or autopsy is not carried out by/in the presence of Ayurveda doctors,” it said.

    The apex court said it is common knowledge that during out-patient days in general hospitals in cities or towns, doctors with MBBS degrees are made to attend to hundreds of patients, which is not the case for Ayurveda practitioners.

    “Therefore, even while recognising the importance of Ayurveda doctors and the need to promote alternative/indigenous systems of medicine, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay,” it said.

    [ad_2]
    #Ayurveda #practitioners #entitled #pay #doctors #MBBS #degrees

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Widows Entitled To Family Pension: High Court

    [ad_1]

    SRINAGAR: A woman who had ongoing divorce litigation with her late husband has been granted the right to receive family pension by the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. The court’s bench, led by Justice Rahul Bharti, stated that “earning family pension is a law given right” and can only be denied if the law allows it, which was not applicable in this case.

    In 2017, the woman submitted a writ petition after her request for the release of family pension and other benefits was denied. Her husband, who had retired from the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Constable in 2015, passed away a year later. The woman subsequently applied to the Commanding Officer of the relevant Battalion in BSF for the release of the family pension to be granted to her. However, the Commanding officer stated that since the woman’s name was not found in the deceased’s pension records and due to the ongoing divorce proceedings, the case for the release of family pension to the widow could not be pursued.

    The woman’s representative contended that she was entitled to the family pension because she had not remarried. However, the respondent authorities opposed the petition, claiming that the woman was receiving monthly maintenance from maintenance proceedings against her deceased husband during his lifetime. They also emphasized that her name was not listed in the pension papers of the deceased.

    The High Court noted that “there was not even a single provision of law quoted in the reply/objections by the respondents as to on what basis they were denying her claim.” The court further interpreted that the respondents were implying that it was the deceased’s wish not to grant family pension to the petitioner after his death. However, the court ruled that such a situation could not be used by the respondents to deny the woman’s claim.

    The High Court determined that the stance taken by the respondent authorities lacked legal merit and was merely frivolous. As a result, the court granted the woman’s petition and ordered the respondent authorities to approve and award the family pension in her favor, along with all applicable retrospective benefits in accordance with the regulations.

    [ad_2]
    #Widows #Entitled #Family #Pension #High #Court

    ( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )