Supreme Court May Refer Issue Of Different Retirement Ages For Ayurvedic and Allopathic Doctors To Larger Bench
The Supreme Court was hearing an SLP filed against the order of Rajasthan High Court, wherein, the services of ayurvedic doctors who have not attained the age of 62 years was reinstated.
CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
Today, the Supreme Court said that it might consider referring the issue of different retirement age for Ayurvedic and Allopathic Doctors to a larger bench.
The Bench of Chief Justice B. R Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing the matter and said, "Anyways, we have closed for Orders...First we will have to whether it is to be decided by a larger bench or not."
The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, submitted that the ayurvedic doctors doesn't do many of the works done by allopathic doctors.
Mehta referred to the order of a Kerala High Court and said, "We are satisfied that the ayurvedic doctors serving in the State of Kerala, having regard to the qualitative distinction in the academic qualification and the standard of imparting degree courses, cannot seek parity with the medical doctors."
While Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, appearing for the Respondent, apprised the Court that the Rajasthan High Court has allowed their Petition after considering the judgments/orders referred.
Further, Mehta referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in P.A. Bhatti case, in which it was held that ayurvedic doctors were not entitled to equal pay as allopathic doctors and submitted that the said Judgment by and far already covers the issue.
Mehta also suggested that if there was any divergence in the judgements referred, a three judge bench can decide the issue. However, CJI suggested that the decision of Supreme Court in NDMC V. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (2021) was a well reasoned judgement and covers the issue.
"The correct course would be to refer to a three judge bench", submitted Mehta.
Thereafter, while reserving the matter for Orders, the CJI said, "Anyways, we have closed for Orders...First we will have to whether it is to be decided by a larger bench or not."
Accordingly, the matter was adjourned.
Cause Title: State of Rajasthan V. Anisur Rahman (SLP(C) No. 9563/2024XV)