In a significant development for the medical fraternity, the Supreme Court of India has reserved its order on a series of petitions that question the disparity in retirement ages between allopathic doctors and practitioners of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homoeopathy) in government hospitals and clinics.
A bench, led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, heard arguments concerning 31 petitions on this matter. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, represented the Rajasthan government, while Ashwini Upadhyaya appeared on behalf of several AYUSH practitioners. The court had previously agreed to examine this issue in May of the previous year.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted that certain state governments had raised the retirement age for allopathic doctors from 60 to 62 years, citing a shortage of these practitioners. He noted that this move has led to similar requests for parity in salaries and retirement age from other medical professionals.
The Chief Justice mentioned that the court would decide if the matter warrants referral to a larger bench. Mr. Upadhyaya argued that his clients risk retiring before a decision is made and that the issue is already settled, asserting that AYUSH practitioners should be treated equally with their allopathic counterparts.
The court acknowledged the arguments, with the Chief Justice remarking, “If you succeed then you will get back wages that too without working,” before reserving the order.
The crux of the issue stems from the Rajasthan government’s decision in March 2016 to increase the retirement age for allopathic doctors from 60 to 62 years due to a shortage. This decision prompted legal challenges from AYUSH doctors in similar government positions.
The Rajasthan High Court had previously ruled in favor of the ayurvedic doctors, stating they should be considered in service until the age of 62 if their retirement date fell after March 31, 2016. The high court ordered the reinstatement of those who had retired at 60 but had not yet reached 62.
The state government appealed this ruling, leading to the current proceedings. The high court had found the differing retirement ages discriminatory and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing that AYUSH doctors perform the same healing functions as allopathic doctors.
Conversely, the state government argued that the increased retirement age for allopathic doctors was a measure to address their shortage, and since there was a larger number of AYUSH doctors, a similar extension was not deemed necessary at the time.
The court’s final decision is awaited, which will have significant implications for the service conditions of thousands of AYUSH practitioners across the country.