Judicial Tug-of-War: High Court Enforces Parity for Ayurvedic Doctors as Supreme  Court Refers Broader Issue to Larger Bench

Jaipur/New Delhi – The legal landscape concerning the service conditions of medical practitioners in India is currently witnessing a significant push and pull between state-level enforcement and a national-level re-evaluation. While a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court recently took a firm stance to enforce its earlier directives granting Ayurvedic doctors parity in retirement age with their Allopathic counterparts, the Supreme Court of India has simultaneously referred the larger, foundational question of such parity to a larger bench, signaling a potential nationwide reckoning on the issue.

This dichotomy presents a complex scenario for legal practitioners, state governments, and thousands of doctors practicing indigenous medicine. On one hand, the Rajasthan High Court's decision in a contempt petition underscores the judiciary's role in upholding established principles of equality under Article 14. On the other, the Supreme Court's reference highlights deep-seated, divergent judicial opinions and a recognition of the complex policy arguments at play.

---

Rajasthan High Court Demands Compliance in Contempt Proceedings

In the case of Dr. Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit, disposed of a contempt petition filed by aggrieved Ayurvedic doctors. The court reaffirmed its earlier position that the "classification between Allopathic and Ayurvedic doctors performing the same functions is unreasonable." It directed the State to ensure these doctors receive the benefit of an enhanced retirement age of 62 years, along with all consequential benefits.

The case stemmed from the State of Rajasthan's decision, effective March 31, 2016, to increase the superannuation age for Allopathic doctors from 60 to 62 years, a benefit not extended to doctors serving under the Department of Ayurved and Bhartiya Chikitsa.

Background of the Litigation

The initial writ petitions filed by the Ayurvedic doctors found favour with the High Court, which heavily relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. In that landmark case, the Apex Court had held that differentiating between doctors of different medical systems for service benefits like retirement age was a violation of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The rationale was simple yet profound: doctors under both systems perform the same essential function of treating patients.

Following the High Court's directive, the State of Rajasthan filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on January 30, 2024. Despite this finality, the state authorities delayed implementation, prompting the petitioners to file the contempt petition.

Arguments and Court's Findings

The petitioners argued a straightforward case of non-compliance with binding judicial orders. The respondent-State, represented by Additional Advocate General Bhuwnesh Sharma, contended that the directions were being "substantially complied with" but that the process was time-consuming due to its statewide ramifications.

The High Court acknowledged the administrative complexities but found the delay, particularly after the SLP's dismissal, to be significant. The Bench noted a similar procedural delay of over nine months in a comparable case, Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Akhil Arora & Ors. , indicating a pattern of administrative inertia.

An interesting legal nuance emerged regarding the financial adjustments for the extended service period. Relying on the precedent set in Vijay Prakash Gautam Vs. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha & Ors. , the court held that the state's condition for petitioners to deposit their retiral benefits (received at age 60) before drawing a salary for the extended period (from 60 to 62) was not an act of disobedience. The court reasoned that a doctor could not simultaneously retain retirement benefits and draw a salary for the same period. However, it provided a significant relief by granting liberty to the petitioners to file representations for notional benefits for the intervening period, directing the State to consider them in accordance with the law.

Ultimately, the contempt petition was disposed of with a clear mandate: the State must extend the enhanced superannuation age of 62 years and all consequential service and monetary benefits to the Ayurvedic doctors.

---

The Supreme Court's Cautious Pause: A Referral to a Larger Bench

While the Rajasthan High Court was enforcing an established precedent, the Supreme Court itself was grappling with the very foundation of that precedent. In a significant order delivered on October 17, a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran referred the overarching question of parity between AYUSH and Allopathic doctors to a larger bench for an "authoritative pronouncement."

Hearing a batch of 31 petitions on the subject, the Apex Court observed that "there is divergence of opinion" in earlier judgments on whether practitioners of indigenous medical systems (Ayurveda, Unani, Homeopathy) can be treated on par with Allopathic doctors for service conditions, including retirement age and pay scales.

State's Counter-Arguments Gain Traction

The Supreme Court gave weight to arguments presented by state governments, including Rajasthan, which were represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The states contended that the policy decision to enhance the retirement age for Allopathic doctors was a specific measure to address a critical shortage of experienced practitioners in that field. The argument, as noted by the court, was that:

“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 surgical care is not carried out by the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine.”

This line of reasoning directly challenges the "same function" principle articulated in the Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma case. It introduces a qualitative distinction based on the nature of medical care provided and the public health exigencies specific to Allopathic medicine.

Interim Measures and Future Implications

Pending the larger bench's decision, the Supreme Court has put in place a unique interim arrangement. It has granted states the discretion to continue AYUSH practitioners beyond their current retirement age, up to the age applicable to Allopathic doctors, but on a temporary basis without regular pay and allowances.

The court has created a framework for future financial reconciliation. If the larger bench rules in favour of the AYUSH doctors, they will be entitled to full pay and allowances for any extended period they serve. Conversely, those not continued in service would still receive arrears if the final decision supports their claim for parity.

This referral casts a long shadow over decisions like the one from the Rajasthan High Court. While the High Court's order is binding on the parties involved, the Supreme Court's move signals that the legal principle underpinning it is now under intense scrutiny. The forthcoming decision from the larger bench will have profound, nationwide implications, potentially setting a new, definitive standard for the service conditions of millions of medical professionals across different systems of medicine in India. For now, the legal community watches with bated breath as the judiciary navigates this complex intersection of constitutional equality, public health policy, and the recognition of diverse medical traditions.