The Supreme Court has referred the issue of whether doctors practising allopathy and indigenous medicine, such as Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Unani, can be treated equally for the purpose of determining service conditions, specifically retirement age, to a larger bench.

The Apex Court was of the view that the claim for parity would have to be decided looking at the qualification acquired, the treatment practices, the functions, work and duties.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “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.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of a series of judgments which took different stands on the question of retirement age and pay scales. In New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. (2021), a Division Bench was concerned with the enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years, effected by the NDMC to General Duty Medical Officers (GDMO) of the Central Health Scheme (CHS), while the doctors covered under AYUSH (including Ayurvedic doctors) were denied the said benefit. It was found that the AYUSH doctors and the doctors under the CHS cannot be classified in different categories since, though practising different forms of medicine, indigenous system and allopathy, they render the very same service to the patients, and any classification would be unreasonable and discriminatory.

Reference was also made to another judgment in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt & Ors. (2023) wherein it was held that the classification based on educational qualification was not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the question of whether the allopathy doctors and the AYUSH doctors carry out similar work, entitling them to equal pay, the issue was answered in negative.

The Bench 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 also affirmed the view taken in Dr. P.A. Bhatt (Supra) that it is the MBBS doctors, the allopathy practitioners, who are dealing with critical care, immediate life saving measures, invasive procedures, including surgeries and even postmortem; none of which can be carried out by any of the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine.

Further reference was made to the observations in Dr. P.A. Bhatt (supra), highlighting the fact that footfalls in allopathy institutions are far more than the institutions administering the indigenous system of medicine. 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”, it added.

The Bench refused to ignore the submission of the States that enhancement of retirement age was only to ensure that there are sufficient experienced medical practitioners available to treat the public. “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 interventional and surgical care is not carried out by the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine”, the order read.

Referring the matter to the Larger Bench, the Apex Court held, “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.”

“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”, it concluded.

Cause Title: State of Rajasthan v. Anisur Rahman (Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024)

Appearance

Petitioner: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma, Advocate Amogh Bansal, Nidhi Jaswal, AORAshwin Romy, Advocates Sachin Singh, Joe Sebastian, Akshat Singh, AOR Anup Kumar, AOR Sakshi Kakkar

Respondent: Senior Advocates S P Chaly, Puneet Jain, AOR C. K. Sasi, Advocates Kk Geetha, Meena K Poulose, Shivam Sharma, AOR Christi Jain, Advocates Nitesh Garg, Nitesh Jain, Akriti Sharma, 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 Adv. Tanuj Dixit, Arup Ratan Dutta Choudhury, Joginder Siwach, AOR Ravi Kumar Tomar

Click here to read/download Judgment


CJI BR GavaiJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.