Supreme Court favours larger bench ruling on parity in service conditions of MBBS and Ayush doctors

There have been divergence of views on the service conditions of both streams of medical practitioners in the past judgments

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has favoured an authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench to clear ambiguity on the issue of parity of pay, allowance, and the retirement age of MBBS and Ayush doctors across the country.

A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran noted the divergence of views on the service conditions of both streams of medical practitioners in the past judgments.

Dealing with a batch of special leave petitions filed by the Rajasthan government, the bench, however, said, the claim of parity should be decided on the touchstone of identity of functions, similarity in work carried out and comparable duties assigned.

The court said the claim for parity would have to be decided finally by looking at the qualifications acquired, the treatment practices, the functions, work and duties, and so on.  

The issue before the court was whether the doctors, practising allopathy and indigenous medicine like ayurveda, homoeopathy, unani etc can be treated equally for the purpose of determining service conditions; herein, specifically retirement age. 

The bench was informed that in a series of judgments, this 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 of this court held that the Ayush doctors and the doctors under the Central Health Scheme cannot be classified in different categories since though practicing different forms of medicine, indigenous system and allopathy, they render the very same service to patients, and any classification would be unreasonable and discriminatory.

In State of Gujarat & Ors vs Dr P A Bhatt & Ors (2023), the bench held in the negative on the issue of whether allopathy doctors and Ayush doctors carry out similar work, entitling them to equal pay. 

The court then said every alternative system of medicine has its own place of pride in history, the practitioners of the indigenous system of medicine do not, in the present times, perform the complicated functions of a doctor having an MBBS.   

The court also noted that the footfall in government hospitals manned by MBBS doctors is far more than that in an institution administering treatment under the indigenous systems of medicine.

Subsequently, in Dr Solamon A vs State of Kerala and Ors (2023), a two-judge bench held 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 vs Bikartan Das and Others (2023), it was stressed that the age of superannuation is always governed by statutory rules.

States, which have brought in two different retirement ages, flagged the issues of public good and the dearth of sufficient allopathy doctors.

"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 bench said.

The court noted there is divergence of opinion insofar as whether the MBBS doctors and doctors practising indigenous systems of medicine can be treated equally, for the purpose of service conditions, which in principle, cannot result in treatment of unequals as equals.