Should AYUSH Doctors Have Equal Service Conditions As Allopathy Doctors ? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
The Court noted conflicting judgments on the issue.
The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a larger Bench the question whether doctors practicing under indigenous medical systems (AYUSH, Unani, Ayurveda, Homeopathy etc.) can be equated with allopathic doctors in regard to service conditions such as retirement age and pay scales.
The reference was made in a batch of appeals challenging differential treatment by States in prescribing retirement age and benefits for doctors of different systems of medicine.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran noticed conflicting judgments on this issue and referred the question as to whether the doctors, practising allopathy and indigenous medicine, like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani etc. can be treated equally for the purpose of determining service conditions, specifically retirement age.
In the 2021 judgment in New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors., a two-judge bench of the Court had held that AYUSH doctors could not be denied the benefit of higher retirement age granted to allopathic doctors merely by virtue of practising a different medical system when their work is comparable. The Court observed that classification based on medical systems, without a rational nexus to job functions or public interest, may amount to unreasonable discrimination.
However, in 2023, in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Dr. P. A. Bhatt & Ors., a coordinate bench held that classification based on educational qualification and medical specialization, distinguishing allopathic doctors from AYUSH practitioners, was permissible, given differences in training and scope of practice. It was held there that AYUSH doctors were not entitled to equal pay as Allopathic doctors as their functions differed. This view was followed in Dr.Solamon A. v. State of Kerala and Ors. which held that AYUSH doctors cannot claim parity with medical doctors.
Reference was also made to the decision in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others, where it was observed that an employee of CCRAS, Ministry of AYUSH was not automatically entitled to demand parity in superannuation age with AYUSH doctors, just because he treated OPD and IPD patients.
In today's order, the Supreme Court said that arguments about equality must be assessed through the touchstone of “identity of functions, similarity of work and comparable duties.”
Despite the judgment in PA Bhatt, the present bench said that "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 led by CJI Gavai added that while service conditions like pay and allowances may be aligned only where the work is essentially comparable, any classification must have reasonable nexus to the objectives of public health and sufficiency of qualified allopathic practitioners.
The Court also recognized States' concerns about the shortage of doctors in allopathic services, which forced them to increase their retirement age.
Noting the divergence of opinions, the Court thought it fit to refer the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
"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," the Court said.
Until the reference is decided, the Supreme Court allowed that States may continue to retain AYUSH doctors beyond their specified retirement age up to the superannuation age applicable to allopathic doctors, but without regular pay or allowances. If the larger Bench later holds in favour of AYUSH doctors, those continued service periods will be regularized with pay and allowances adjusted accordingly. Meanwhile, the Court directed that if the State government allows continuation of service, these doctors shall be paid half of the pay and allowances during this interim period; if the reference outcome disfavors them, this sum may be adjusted against their regular pay or pension entitlements.
Case : State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Anisur Rahman and connected cases.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1017