The Supreme Court referred the issue of whether MBBS and AYUSH doctors can receive equal service conditions, including retirement age, to a larger bench, emphasizing that treatment of unequals as equals is impermissible, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the petitioner.
The Supreme Court referred the question of whether doctors practicing allopathy and indigenous medicine such as Ayurveda, Homeopathy, and Unani can be treated equally regarding service conditions, particularly retirement age, to a larger bench.
The Court emphasized that the claim for parity needs to be evaluated based on qualifications, treatment practices, functions, work, and duties.
The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, stated,
“There is divergence of opinion insofar as whether the MBBS doctors and doctors practicing indigenous systems of medicine can be treated equally for the purpose of service conditions, which on principle, it is trite cannot result in treatment of unequals as equals. We are of the opinion that there should be an authoritative pronouncement on the issue and we hence refer the matter to a larger Bench. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate S. P. Chaly represented the respondent.
The Bench considered several judgments that expressed differing views on retirement age and pay scales. In New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. (2021), a Division Bench addressed the increase in the retirement age from 60 to 65 years for General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) under the Central Health Scheme (CHS).
Meanwhile, AYUSH doctors were denied this benefit. It was concluded that AYUSH doctors and CHS doctors cannot be classified into separate categories since, despite practicing different medical systems, they provide the same patient services. Any classification was deemed unreasonable and discriminatory.
Another case referenced was State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt & Ors. (2023), where the classification based on educational qualifications was ruled not to violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The bench found that allopathy doctors and AYUSH doctors do not perform similar work that would entitle them to equal pay.
It stated,
“We are quite conscious of the fact that Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma was distinguished in Dr. P.A. Bhatt. Still, there is an area of ambiguity insofar as service conditions, especially of retirement age and the pay packages, with reference to the doctors administering different forms of medical treatment, evaluated for the purposes of parity, should be ideally considered, according to us, on the touchstone of, identity of functions, similarity in work carried out and comparable duties assigned.”
The Bench supported the view in Dr. P.A. Bhatt (supra) that MBBS doctors, as allopathy practitioners, manage critical care, life-saving procedures, invasive operations, and postmortems tasks that cannot be undertaken by practitioners of indigenous medicine.
Also Read: “Law Should Build Bridges, Not Walls”: Justice Surya Kant
It further noted that footfalls in allopathy institutions significantly outnumber those in institutions offering indigenous medicine. The differing curricula, diagnostic methods, treatment philosophies, and the compositions of administered medicines distinctly separate allopathy doctors.
The management of casualty, critical care, trauma, and emergency procedures is solely the domain of allopathy doctors.
It added,
“These aspects according to us, puts the former in a different class altogether, who can be classified differently for service conditions. This has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e.: the sufficiency of qualified and experienced MBBS doctors with better pay scales and longer service, both,”
The Bench acknowledged the States’ argument that raising the retirement age aims to ensure enough experienced medical practitioners are available for public care.
The order stated,
“The dearth of medical practitioners as occurring in allopathy does not exist in the indigenous systems of medicine especially when critical life-saving therapeutic, interventional and surgical care is not carried out by the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine,”
In referring the matter to the larger bench, the Apex Court declared,
“In the meanwhile, the States and the authorities would be entitled to either continue the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine, even after the age of superannuation specified for them till the age of superannuation provided for MBBS doctors, without the benefit of regular pay and allowance.”
It concluded that if AYUSH doctors are retained beyond retirement age, they will not be entitled to a pension but will receive half of the pay and allowances, which will be adjusted against their pension or regular pay and allowances if the reference does not yield favorable results.
The petitioners were represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma, and Advocates Amogh Bansal, Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Ashwin Romy, Sachin Singh, Joe Sebastian, Akshat Singh, AOR Anup Kumar, and AOR Sakshi Kakkar.
The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates S. P. Chaly and Puneet Jain, along with AOR C. K. Sasi, Advocates Kk Geetha, Meena K. Poulose, Shivam Sharma, AOR Christi Jain, Advocates Nitesh Garg, Nitesh Jain, 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, AOR M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, AOR Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Advocate Nikhil Upadhyay, AOR Rahul Jajoo, Advocate Neetu Bhansali, Manish Verma, Sadhna, Mushkan Mangla, Nitin, Advocate Tanuj Dixit, Arup Ratan Dutta Choudhury, Joginder Siwach, and AOR Ravi Kumar Tomar.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Anisur Rahman (Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024)