Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024
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
O R D E R
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
1
Naresh Sharma & Ors. , 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.
2 1
P.A. Bhatt & Ors. The decision in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma 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
1
equal work or not, was not dealt with in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma .
2
4. Dr. P.A. Bhatt 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.
2
5. Relying on the judgement in Dr.P.A. Bhatt , another Division
3
Bench of this Court in Dr.Solamon A. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
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
4
in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others .
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
1
Dr.Ram Naresh Sharma , it was also found that the decision
turned on the order of the Ministry of AYUSH dated 24.11.2017,
2
which was the finding in Dr. P.A. Bhatt also.
7. We are quite conscious of the fact that Dr. Ram Naresh
1 2
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.
8. The claim for parity will have to be decided finally looking at
the qualification acquired, the treatment practices, the functions,
2
work and duties and so on. As has been noticed in Dr. P.A. Bhatt ,
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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563 of 2024
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
O R D E R
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
1
Naresh Sharma & Ors. , 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.
2 1
P.A. Bhatt & Ors. The decision in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma 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
1
equal work or not, was not dealt with in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma .
2
4. Dr. P.A. Bhatt 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.
2
5. Relying on the judgement in Dr.P.A. Bhatt , another Division
3
Bench of this Court in Dr.Solamon A. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
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
4
in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others .
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
1
Dr.Ram Naresh Sharma , it was also found that the decision
turned on the order of the Ministry of AYUSH dated 24.11.2017,
2
which was the finding in Dr. P.A. Bhatt also.
7. We are quite conscious of the fact that Dr. Ram Naresh
1 2
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.
8. The claim for parity will have to be decided finally looking at
the qualification acquired, the treatment practices, the functions,
2
work and duties and so on. As has been noticed in Dr. P.A. Bhatt ,
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.