SC Refers AYUSH-Doctors’ Retirement Age Dispute to Larger Bench

A Supreme Court division bench has referred to a larger bench the question of whether doctors practicing traditional systems of medicine, including Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani, and other AYUSH disciplines, can be treated on par with allopathic doctors for determining service conditions, particularly the age of retirement.

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order on October 17, 2025, while hearing a batch of Special Leave Petitions, including one filed by the State of Rajasthan. The petitions challenged divergent High Court and tribunal rulings that had granted AYUSH doctors the same retirement benefits as their allopathic counterparts.

''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 said.  

Court opined that 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.  

In the meantime, the Supreme Court permitted states to continue AYUSH doctors beyond their current retirement age i.e. up to the age applicable to MBBS doctors, but only on half pay and without pension benefits. If the final ruling favours them, they will be entitled to full pay and allowances for the intervening period.

The batch of special leave petitions raises 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, specifically retirement age.  

It was highlighted that in a series of judgments, the apex court took different stands on the question of retirement age and pay scales.  

In New Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs 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. 

As the Union Cabinet approved enhancement of the age of superannuation of AYUSH doctors to 65 years, the apex 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.

The issue with respect to different pay scales for doctors holding an 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 (2023).

It was then held that the classification based on educational qualification was not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 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.

The court then held 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 court held that the practitioners of indigenous system of medicine do not, in the present times, perform the complicated functions of a doctor having MBBS.   

The court also noted the footfalls in Government Hospitals manned by MBBS doctors are far more than those in an institution administering treatment under the indigenous systems of medicine.

Relying on the judgment in Dr. P. A. Bhatt, another division bench of the Supreme court in Dr. Solamon A. v. State of Kerala and Ors (2023) 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.   

In Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others (2023), it was stressed that the age of superannuation is always governed by statutory rules. Even if the nature of work involved in two streams are similar that cannot be a ground to equate or alter the service conditions of an employee governed by a set of rules, the court then held.

In Dr. P.A. Bhatt, the top court held, 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. 

Case Title: State of Rajasthan and Ors Vs Anisur Rahman

Order Date: October 17, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran