Supreme Court on Parity Between Allopathy and AYUSH Doctors in Service Conditions.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the issue of whether doctors practicing allopathy and those practicing indigenous systems of medicine (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani, etc.) can be treated equally for determining service conditions—specifically, the age of retirement and pay scales. While acknowledging divergent judicial opinions, the Court observed that equality in service conditions must be assessed on the basis of functional parity, qualifications, and nature of duties performed. The Court permitted States to continue AYUSH practitioners beyond their current retirement age provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the reference.

Background:

1. Multiple Special Leave Petitions were filed raising the question of parity between allopathic and AYUSH doctors concerning retirement age and pay scales.
2. Petitioners relied on New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (2021) 17 SCC 642, where AYUSH doctors were granted the same retirement age as allopathic doctors following a Union Cabinet decision.
3. However, in State of Gujarat v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt (2023 SCC OnLine SC 503), the Supreme Court held that educational qualifications and job functions of allopathy and AYUSH doctors are distinct, thereby justifying differential treatment in pay and other service benefits.
4. The issue was further discussed in Dr. Solamon A. v. State of Kerala and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023 SCC OnLine 996), both upholding the validity of classification based on qualification and functional differences.

Court’s Observations:

1. The Court noted the divergence in earlier decisions, particularly between Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and Dr. P.A. Bhatt.
2. It observed that the identity of functions, work performed, and qualifications acquired should be the basis for determining parity in service conditions.
3. Allopathy doctors handle critical care, trauma, surgeries, and emergency procedures, whereas AYUSH practitioners generally do not perform such tasks.
4. The classification between the two categories of doctors was held to be reasonable and based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective of ensuring sufficient allopathic practitioners for public healthcare.
5. However, due to inconsistent precedents, the matter required authoritative determination by a larger Bench.

Interim Directions:

1. States may allow AYUSH doctors to continue beyond their prescribed retirement age, up to the retirement age of allopathy doctors, but only at half pay and allowances.
2. Such continuation will be subject to the final outcome of the reference before the larger Bench.
3. If the decision ultimately favors AYUSH doctors, they will be entitled to full pay and benefits for the extended period.
4. If they are not continued, they may still claim retrospective benefits depending on the final judgment.

Legal Principles Discussed:

1. Articles 14 & 16, Constitution of India – Equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment.
2. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification – Unequals cannot be treated as equals if a rational basis exists for differentiation.
3. Service Jurisprudence – Parity in pay or service conditions must be based on functional equivalence and comparable duties.

Citation: 2025:SC:87421

Case: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Anisur Rahman & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Special Leave Petition (C): No. 9563 of 2024 & Connected Matters

Citation: 2025:SC:87421

Case: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Anisur Rahman & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Special Leave Petition (C): No. 9563 of 2024 & Connected Matters