While issuing directions to the State, the Justice Soumitra Saikia observed:

“The State will therefore expedite the process for the recommendations sought for from the committee which was already constituted and which had undertaken several meetings and thereafter lay down such criteria and modalities and requirements as may be deemed necessary so that the Rural Health Practitioners/Community Health Practitioners are permitted to undertake their responsibilities as was envisaged under the erstwhile Act of 2004…”

“It is also made clear that the recommendations will also work out a separate cadre for the Rural Health Practitioners/Community Health Professionals with complete particulars in respect of their pay, the grade, the health benefits, all service benefits with avenues for due promotion where required".

The Court further directed, “Let the constituted Committee consider the matter in its entirety and submit its recommendations within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The State thereafter shall consider the recommendations and pass appropriate orders for implementation…”

The petitioners had enrolled in the Diploma Course in Medicine and Rural Health Care under the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004. They completed the course in different batches and were subsequently enrolled as Community Health Professionals under the Assam Community Health Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015.

According to the petitioners, they were admitted through a selection process conducted pursuant to advertisements issued by the Director of Medical Education, Assam. They successfully completed the diploma course, were registered as Rural Health Practitioners and appointed in rural areas under the National Rural Health Mission. During the pendency of the challenge to the 2004 Act, they were never made parties and no interim order restrained the continuation of the course or admissions.

The petitioners contended that after the 2004 Act was struck down and the 2015 Act came into force, they were redesignated as Community Health Officers, which according to them downgraded their status from Rural Health Practitioners to paramedical personnel. They argued that the rights accrued to them under the 2004 Act could not be taken away and sought implementation of paragraph 25(iv) of the Supreme Court's judgment, framing of rules and schemes, and creation of a separate cadre with service benefits.

The State submitted that after the enactment of the 2015 Act, the petitioners had been registered as Community Health Professionals and continued to be engaged under the National Health Mission. It contended that the validity of the 2015 Act had already been upheld by the Supreme Court and that the petitioners' interests were being protected under the new enactment.

Explaining why the petitioners were entitled to relief, the Court held that the Supreme Court's judgment had protected the benefits accrued to them under the 2004 Act.

“Therefore, the penultimate directions of the Apex Court by the order dated 24.01.2023 passed in SLP(C) No.32592-32593 of 2015, makes it very clear that the benefit accrued to the writ petitioners by virtue of their diplomas and the training which they had earned under the erstwhile Act of 2004 has been given to the writ petitioners. Therefore, by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Apex Court has protected the writ petitioners insofar as their stature as Rural Health Professionals is concerned by accepting the fresh nomenclature as Community Health Professionals,” it said.

The Court further held that the diplomas, training and exposure acquired by Rural Health Practitioners under the erstwhile Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 "cannot be taken away."

“The diplomas and the training and also the exposure earned by the Rural Health Practitioners under the erstwhile Act of 2004 cannot be taken away. In the specific findings by the Apex Court, the State must take all steps to retain the status of these Rural Health Practitioners, notwithstanding the change in the nomenclature as community health professionals under the new Act of 2015. The State cannot restrict the writ petitioners from rendering their services in the manner they earlier served as Rural Health Practitioners, notwithstanding the change in the nomenclature as Community Health Professionals,” it said.

Emphasising the need to utilise trained healthcare personnel in rural areas, the Court observed, “In a country of 1.47 billion people of which about 62.5% to 63% reside in the rural areas bringing the rural population to roughly 922 to 930 million people, it is paramount in national interest that qualified professionals who are capable of rendering essential health services in terms of the standards specified and/or enumerated by the health department. That step should be taken to ensure qualified health professionals to be made available to such areas in addition to the regular doctors under allopathy, homeopathy, aayurvedic as considered necessary by the State.”

The writ petition was disposed of in the above terms.

Case Name: Bikram Pathak And 608 Ors. v. State of Assam And 4 Ors

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 83

Case Number: WP(C)/2581/2024

Click Here To Read Judgement