States May Differentiate Retirement Age of Allopathy and AYUSH Doctors; Matter Referred to Larger Bench

A bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard a batch of Special Leave Petitions raising whether doctors practising allopathy and those in indigenous systems of medicine (AYUSH) could be treated equally for determining service conditions, primarily the age of superannuation. The petitions arose from differing service rules adopted by States and authorities on retirement age and pay scales for MBBS doctors vis-à-vis practitioners of Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani and other indigenous systems.

The Court held that the question required authoritative resolution by a larger Bench and therefore referred the matter for re‑consideration while issuing interim directions about continuance and remuneration. The bench noted there was "divergence of opinion" in earlier decisions and emphasised that parity claims must be examined on the "touchstone of identity of functions, similarity in work carried out and comparable duties assigned." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The claim for parity will have to be decided finally looking at the qualification acquired, the treatment practices, the functions, work and duties and so on. ... The curriculum leading to the different qualifications, the dissimilar diagnostic methods, contrasting treatment philosophies and the disparate composition of medicines administered sets the allopathy doctors apart. Further, casualty, critical care, trauma management and the emergency interventional procedures are dealt with by allopathy doctors and not by AYUSH doctors. 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 Court directed that, in the meantime, States could continue AYUSH practitioners beyond their specified superannuation age up to the MBBS retirement age without regular pay and allowances, and added: "Considering the fact that if the AYUSH doctors are continued, they will not be entitled to pension also, it is directed that they shall be paid half of the pay and allowances, which, if the reference does not yield any favourable orders will be adjusted in their pension or otherwise against the regular pay and allowances."

Background The litigation comprised multiple SLPs challenging divergent State policies on retirement age and pay parity between allopathy and AYUSH doctors. Earlier precedents were relied upon on both sides: New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (2021) where this Court treated AYUSH doctors and CHS doctors alike after an executive decision increased superannuation to 65 years; State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt (2023) which distinguished Ram Naresh Sharma and upheld classification based on educational qualifications and differences in clinical roles; and subsequent decisions including Dr. Solamon A. v. State of Kerala and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, which addressed statutory rule‑governed service conditions and distinctions between streams of medicine.

The petitioners (State Governments and authorities) contended that MBBS doctors performed critical life‑saving, interventional and trauma care and therefore justified higher retirement age and pay to secure sufficient experienced allopathy practitioners. The respondents (AYUSH practitioners) relied on precedents that afforded parity where functions were identical and on executive or administrative orders that had previously extended benefits. The Court analysed the curricula, diagnostic methods, treatment philosophies and scope of practice in allopathy vis‑à‑vis indigenous systems and found material distinctions that, prima facie, supported classification. Observing that "treatment of unequals as equals" could not be permitted, the bench referred the central question for determination by a larger Bench.

The final operative order directed constitution of a larger Bench to decide whether service conditions including retirement age and pay could be equated; allowed States to continue AYUSH practitioners beyond their prescribed superannuation up to the MBBS retirement age without regular pay and allowances in the interim; provided that if continued they must be paid half pay, which would be adjusted later if the larger Bench ruled in their favour; and clarified that a practitioner who declined unpaid continuance would be treated as retired and would not be affected by the reference.

Case Details: Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 (and connected matters) Case Title: State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anisur Rahman Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not mentioned in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not mentioned in the judgment