The Supreme Court considered Special Leave Petitions raising the question of whether doctors practicing allopathy and those practicing indigenous systems of medicine, such as Ayurveda, Homeopathy, and Unani, should be treated equally regarding service conditions, particularly retirement age.
The Court examined whether differences in qualifications, duties, and functions could justify varied service benefits. The Bench observed that the matter required an authoritative pronouncement due to divergent practices across States and directed the matter to a larger Bench for final adjudication.
The petitions arose from disparities in retirement age and service conditions for doctors under different medical systems. While allopathy doctors were often granted a higher retirement age and enhanced pay scales, AYUSH doctors were sometimes excluded. The controversy initially emerged when the New Delhi Municipal Corporation extended retirement age for allopathy doctors without similarly benefitting AYUSH practitioners. Previous High Court and tribunal orders temporarily extended benefits to AYUSH doctors, pending clarification.
Counsels for AYUSH doctors argued for parity with allopathy doctors, emphasizing that both categories serve patients and perform critical healthcare functions. Conversely, State authorities and allopathy doctor representatives contended that allopathy practitioners handle emergency care, trauma, invasive procedures, surgeries, and critical care, services not performed by AYUSH doctors, justifying differences in retirement age and pay. The States also highlighted public health concerns and the need to retain experienced MBBS doctors for critical services.
The Court analyzed previous judgments, including New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt, noting that while some rulings extended retirement benefits to AYUSH doctors, distinctions in work performed and qualifications were emphasized in others.
The Court stated that, “It is the MBBS doctors, the allopathy practitioners, who are dealing with critical care, immediate life-saving measures, invasive procedures including surgeries and even postmortem; none of which can be carried out by any of the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine. These aspects put the former in a different class altogether, which can be classified differently for service conditions.”
The Court also recognized that retirement age and pay scales must align with public health priorities, ensuring sufficient numbers of qualified allopathy doctors while balancing fairness for AYUSH practitioners.
The Top Court referred the matter to a larger Bench for a definitive ruling on whether AYUSH doctors are entitled to parity in retirement age and pay with allopathy doctors. In the interim, the Court allowed States to continue AYUSH doctors beyond their superannuation age applicable to them but without regular pay and allowances. Provisions were made for half-pay during the interim period, which would later be adjusted depending on the final outcome.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Anisur Rahman
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice B.R Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General), Shiv Mangal Sharma (A.A.G.), Amogh Bansal, Nidhi Jaswal (AOR), Ashwin Romy, Sachin Singh, Joe Sebastian, Akshat Singh, Anup Kumar (AOR), Sakshi Kakkar (AOR)
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. S P Chaly (Sr.), C. K. Sasi (AOR), Kk Geetha; Meena K Poulose; Shivam Sharma; Puneet Jain, Sr.; Christi Jain, AOR; Nitesh Garg; Nitesh Jain; Akriti Sharma; Akriti Sharma; Om Sudhir Vidyarthi; Harsh Jain; Aditya Jain; Siddharth Jain; S.K Pandey; Awanish Kumar; Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi; Anshul Rai; Rajan Parmar; Rahul Singh Latwal; Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR; Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay; Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR; Nikhil Upadhyay; Rahul Jajoo, AOR; Neetu Bhansali; Manish Verma; Sadhna; Mushkan Mangla; Nitin Tanuj Dixit; Arup Ratan Dutta Choudhury; Joginder Siwach; Ravi Kumar Tomar, AOR.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
