The judgments consider the disparities often witnessed between an AYUSH and allopathic doctor. The hesitancy to approach an AYUSH doctor is quite common given the rumors that surround the treatment. However, the ineffectiveness has never been established. Still, such hesitancy has left AYUSH doctors often discriminated against, which has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court in various instances.
Are different retirement ages for AYUSH and Allopathy doctors justified?
Can AYUSH doctors be treated at par with Allopathic doctors in terms of salary?
The Supreme Court has observed that different ages of retirement for doctors practicing AYUSH system of medicines and allopathic doctors has no rational justification. The Court further observed that the mode of treatment by itself cannot qualify as an “intelligible differentia” (reasonable classification) between two categories as far as retirement age for the profession is concerned.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the order of the Uttarakhand High Court that under the National Rural Health Mission/National health Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme, AYUSH doctors shall be treated at par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers with regards to salary. The High Court had noted that there exists no intelligible differentia that Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Medical Officers be considered a different class from the Allopathic and Dental Medical Officers.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VINEET SARAN; J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).33645/2018; 24-03-2022
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. VERSUS SANJAY SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS.
National Health Mission - Ayurvedic doctors will be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme - Upheld Uttarakhand High Court judgment that under the NRHM/NHM Scheme, Ayurvedic Doctors will be entitled to parity in salary with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers.
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-04-2018 in WP No.484/2014 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv. (AAG) Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR
For Respondent(s) Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Bahuguna, Adv. Mr. Rafat Munir, Adv. Mr. C. K. Rai, AOR Mr. Sumit Panwar Ali, Adv. Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Amit Verma, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Datta, Adv.
O R D E R
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground for interference with the order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, we may only clarify that the respondents who are Ayurvedic doctors will be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme.
After the order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that petitioners would like to file a review petition before the High Court. It is not for this Court to issue any such direction. It is always open to the petitioners to pursue such remedy as may be available to them in law.
AYUSH is the acronym of the medical systems that are being practiced in India such as Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy. An allopathic doctor is one who practices modern medicine and treats their patient with science-based modern medicine.
While the judgments do not take any legislation under consideration, they do talk about intelligible differentia which is an essential part of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A labour and service lawyer can be of extreme help in such situations. An expert labour lawyer is well-aware of discriminatory practices often faced by different professions and they are better equipped to develop a strategy to represent your case.