State Of Rajasthan vs Anisur Rahman

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Petitioner(s) Versus Anisur Rahman Respondent(s) With

Special Leave Petition (C) No.27110 of 2023 Special Leave Petition (C) No.27095-27096 of 2023 Special Leave Petition (C) No.11028 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9795 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.10560 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.14059 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.11564 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.11401 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.14125 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.12493 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.12115 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.21533 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.17270 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.19882 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.19881 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.19880 of 2024 Diary No.41848 of 2024 Diary No.41849 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.27444 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.27443 of 2024 Special Leave Petition (C) No.11737 of 2025 Special Leave Petition (C) No.11738 of 2025 Special Leave Petition (C) No.1664 of 2025 Special Leave Petition (C) No.11571 of 2025 Diary No.11533 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 etc. Special Leave Petition (C) No.26821 of 2025 Special Leave Petition (C) No.26820 of 2025 Special Leave Petition (C) No.26819 of 2025 Special Leave Petition (C) No.28275 of 2025 Special Leave Petition (C) No.28274 of 2025

ORDER

1. These Special Leave Petitions raise the question as to

whether the doctors, practicing allopathy and indigenous

medicine; like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani etc. can be treated

equally for the purpose of determining service conditions; herein,

specifically retirement age.

2. Reliance has been placed on a series of judgements of this

Court which took different stands on the question of retirement age

and pay scales. In New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram

Naresh Sharma & Ors.1, 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. There

were interim orders by the Administrative Tribunal and the High

Court by virtue of which the AYUSH doctors were also continued.

1 (2021) 17 SCC 642 Page 2 of 9 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 etc. When the matters were pending, AYUSH came out with a

communication that the doctors under it will also be enabled

superannuation at 65 years with effect from 27.09.2017; as

approved by the Union Cabinet. This Court found that the AYUSH

doctors and the doctors under the CHS cannot be classified in

different categories since though practicing 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.

3. The issue with respect to different pay scales for doctors

holding MBBS degree and its higher qualifications as

distinguishable from doctors having a degree in indigenous

systems came up for consideration in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Dr.

P.A. Bhatt & Ors.2 The decision in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma1 was

distinguished on three grounds. One, that it was based on a

decision of the Union Cabinet permitting those doctors under

AYUSH also the higher retirement age, which direction came when

the matters were pending before the Court. It was also held that

the question of age of retirement stands on a different footing from

2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 503 Page 3 of 9 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 etc. the service conditions relating to pay and allowances and revision

thereof. Then, it was emphasised that the fundamental distinction

with respect to equal work for equal pay and as to whether the two

categories of employees can be considered to be performing

equal work or not, was not dealt with in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma1.

4. Dr. P.A. Bhatt2 held, relying on a number of decisions, 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

found in the negative. It was found that allopathy doctors are

required to perform emergency treatment and provide trauma

care and assist in complicated surgeries none of which can be

performed by doctors having a degree in indigenous systems.

While holding that every alternative system of medicine has its

own place of pride in history, the practitioners of indigenous

system of medicine do not, in the present times, perform the

complicated functions of a doctor having MBBS. The learned

Judges also observed that the footfalls in Government Hospitals

manned by MBBS doctors are far more than that in an institution

Page 4 of 9 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 etc. administering treatment under the indigenous systems of

medicine.

5. Relying on the judgement in Dr.P.A. Bhatt2, another Division

Bench of this Court in Dr.Solamon A. v. State of Kerala and Ors.3

found that the AYUSH or Ayurvedic doctors, having regard to the

qualitative distinction in the academic qualifications and the

standard of imparting respective degree courses, cannot seek

parity with medical doctors.

6. Reliance was also played on Central Council for Research

in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others4.

In the said judgment, the question arose as to whether the

enhancement of retirement age made by the Ministry of AYUSH for

all doctors working under AYUSH and the CHS was applicable to

the first respondent, since it was clarified that the enhancement

would not be applicable to autonomous bodies functioning under

the Ministry of Ayush. Though, the issue is not similar to the one we

are dealing with, what was stressed upon from that decision was

the finding that the age of superannuation is always governed by

statutory rules. Even if the nature of work involved in two streams

3 Special Leave Petition (C) No.3946 of 2023 4 2023 SCC Online 996 Page 5 of 9 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 etc. are similar that cannot be a ground to equate or alter the service

conditions of an employee governed by a set of rules. Referring to

Dr.Ram Naresh Sharma1, it was also found that the decision

turned on the order of the Ministry of AYUSH dated 24.11.2017,

which was the finding in Dr. P.A. Bhatt2 also.

7. We are quite conscious of the fact that Dr. Ram Naresh

Sharma1 was distinguished in Dr.P.A. Bhatt2. 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.

8. The claim for parity will have to be decided finally looking at

the qualification acquired, the treatment practices, the functions,

work and duties and so on. As has been noticed in Dr. P.A. Bhatt2,

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

Page 6 of 9 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 etc. systems of medicine. The contention of the States which have

brought in two different retirement ages, is also that of public good

and the concern expressed is of dearth of sufficient allopathy

doctors. As has been noticed in Dr. P.A. Bhatt (supra), it is

common knowledge that the footfalls in allopathy institutions are

far more than the institutions administrating 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.

9. We cannot 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 Page 7 of 9 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 etc. 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

surgical care is not carried out by the practitioners of indigenous

systems of medicine. 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.

10. 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 allowances. Eventually, if

the larger Bench holds in favour of the AYUSH doctors, entitling

them for enhancement in retirement age, the practitioners would

be entitled to avail pay and allowances during the period they Page 8 of 9 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 etc. were continued. However, if they are not allowed to continue by

virtue of this order, still they would be entitled to avail the pay and

allowances for the enhanced period, if the issue is held in their

favour. If the State Government permits such continuance and the

individual doctors do not take up such assignment without regular

pay and allowances, they would be treated as retired and the fate

of this reference will be inconsequential to them.

11. 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.

12. Ordered accordingly.

..…….……………………. CJI.

(B. R. GAVAI)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN) New Delhi;

October 17, 2025.

Page 9 of 9 Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024 etc.