The Supreme Court has told Rajasthan to first clear an AYUSH doctor’s retirement benefits under earlier judgments, and only then press its appeal on the larger question of parity with allopathic doctors.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, asked the State of Rajasthan to comply first with earlier judgments on an AYUSH doctor’s retirement benefits, while keeping the State’s appeal pending. The doctor was retired at 60, instead of the age of 62 that applies to allopathic doctors in the State, and the bench made clear that the pendency of a three-judge reference on the issue does not excuse non-payment [State of Rajasthan v. AYUSH Doctor (retirement benefits appeal)].
The matter was heard by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee appeared for the State.
Background
The dispute goes back to Rajasthan’s decision to raise the retirement age of allopathic doctors from 60 to 62 with effect from March 31, 2016, a step taken to deal with a shortage of doctors. AYUSH doctors, who practise systems such as Ayurveda, Unani and Homoeopathy, were left at 60. The Rajasthan High Court held the difference discriminatory under Article 14 and ruled that AYUSH doctors whose retirement date fell after March 31, 2016 were deemed to be in service up to 62.
When the State’s appeal came up in September 2024, the Supreme Court did not stay the High Court’s view and ordered the State to release pending salaries of reinstated AYUSH doctors within a week.
On October 17, 2025, a bench of then Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran noted a divergence of opinion in earlier decisions and referred the question whether AYUSH practitioners can be treated on par with allopathic doctors for service conditions, retirement age and pay to a larger bench. As an interim arrangement, it allowed States to keep AYUSH practitioners in service up to the allopathic retirement age on half pay and allowances, adjustable depending on the final outcome.
Pay first, argue later
At Wednesday’s hearing, the Court was told that the doctor’s batchmates had already been paid and that the High Court had asked the State to fix and pay his benefits. Contempt proceedings on that direction are pending before the High Court.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi put it plainly:
“Before you argue, you have to pay.”
Justice V Mohana said a later judgment could not be used to sidestep the earlier ones:
“This subsequent judgment will not enable you to avoid the earlier two judgments.”
She added that a pending three-judge reference does not suspend compliance.
The State’s case
ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee said the State would pay, but asked the Court to admit the appeal so that the larger issue could be examined. Justice Bagchi responded that contempt is pending in the High Court and that the State should pay and then respond there.
The Chief Justice noted that one judgment rejects the claim of AYUSH doctors to parity, while another takes a different view without independently dealing with parity. Justice Bagchi said the Court would decide the question “subject to compliance”.
The ASG argued that retirement ages were raised to make sure enough experienced medical practitioners were available to treat the public.
He also relied on the Mahesh Chandra Sharma ruling on non-discrimination in retirement age. Justice Bagchi replied that a pending reference does not excuse non-compliance with judgments requiring payment.
What the Court directed
The bench told the State to comply with the earlier judgments, with liberty to recover the amount from the employees if it later succeeds. The appeal will stay pending.
“Comply with it first. If you succeed subsequently, you can recover the amount from the employees. Comply and come back. We will keep this pending.”
The ASG replied: “Obliged.”
The written order of the day was not available at the time of writing, and the next date of hearing was not stated.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. AYUSH Doctor (retirement benefits appeal; case number awaited)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee for the State of Rajasthan