Classification Between Allopathic & Ayurvedic Doctors Performing Same Function Unreasonable: Rajasthan HC

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit held that classification between Allopathic and Ayurvedic doctors performing the same functions is unreasonable and that Ayurvedic doctors are entitled to the same enhanced retirement age of 62 years along with all consequential benefits. Background Facts The petitioners were Ayurvedic Doctors serving under the Department of Ayurved and Bhartiya Chikitsa, Government of Rajasthan. They approached the High Court of Rajasthan seeking enforcement of earlier judicial directions regarding enhancement of their age of superannuation. The State Government had enhanced the retirement age of Allopathic Doctors from 60 to 62 years with effect from 31.03.2016, but did not extend the same benefit to Ayurvedic Doctors. Aggrieved, several doctors including the petitioners filed writ petitions. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors., it was held by the High Court that such classification between Allopathic and Ayurvedic Doctors was unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was directed that Ayurvedic Doctors were also entitled to continue in service till the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits like refixation of pension and arrears. The Special Leave Petition filed by the State was dismissed on 30.01.2024. Still the authorities delayed compliance. The petitioners submitted representations seeking reinstatement and monetary benefits in terms of the earlier orders, but the directions were not fully implemented. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the contempt petition. It was submitted by the petitioners that the respondent-State authorities did not comply with the judgments passed by the Court, which had held that the Ayurvedic Doctors were entitled to continue in service until the age of 62 years, on par with their Allopathic Doctors. On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the directions of the Court have been substantially complied with and the decision taking took time as it had ramification across the State. Findings of the Court The judgment of the Supreme Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. was relied upon wherein it was held that creating a distinction in the age of superannuation between Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors is an unreasonable and discriminatory classification violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as doctors under both systems perform the same function of treating patients. It was further observed that the State required time to implement the judgment due to its state-wide ramifications, however, the delay in reinstating the petitioners after the dismissal of the SLP was significant. It was noted that in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Akhil Arora & Ors., that the State took over nine months to issue reinstatement orders, which was procedurally delayed. The case of Vijay Prakash Gautam Vs. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha & Ors, was relied upon wherein it was held that the petitioners could not retain retirement benefits for the age of 60 while simultaneously drawing a salary for the extended service period until 62. Hence, the condition imposed by the state for depositing the retiral benefits was not found to be in disobedience of the court's order. However, the Court provided relief by granting liberty to these petitioners to file representations for the grant of notional benefits for the intervening period between 60 and 62 years of age, directing the State to consider such representations in accordance with the law. It was held by the court that Ayurvedic doctors are entitled to the same enhanced age of superannuation of 62 years as Allopathic doctors, and all consequential service and monetary benefits must be extended to them in compliance with earlier judicial directions. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the contempt petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of by the court. Case Name : Dr. Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Case No. : D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 942/2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 356 Counsel for the Petitioners : Yash Tiwari with Vishwas Sharma Counsel for the Respondents : Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG assisted by Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Sunita Meena & Samee Khan, Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAGClick Here To Read/Download The Order

Classification Between Allopathic & Ayurvedic Doctors Performing Same Function Unreasonable: Rajasthan HC

Namdev Singh

Tags