Legal Review and Analysis of State of Rajasthan & Ors vs Anisur Rahman & Connected Matters Special Leave Petition C No 9563 of 2024

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anisur Rahman & Connected Matters
Citation: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9563 of 2024 etc.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, J., and K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Date: October 17, 2025

2. Related Laws and Constitutional Provisions

The judgment primarily engages with the following constitutional and legal principles:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The issue was whether differentiating between doctors of different systems violates this right by being arbitrary and discriminatory.

• Article 16 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The petitioners argued that different retirement ages and pay scales for similarly situated doctors violate this principle.

• Doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work": This is a facet of Articles 14 and 16. The core legal question was whether Allopathy (MBBS) doctors and AYUSH doctors perform "equal work" to claim parity in service conditions.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This case is a consolidation of multiple Special Leave Petitions. The central legal conflict pertains to the service conditions, specifically the age of superannuation (retirement age) and pay scales, of doctors practicing the Allopathic system of medicine versus those practicing indigenous systems like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Unani, etc. (collectively under AYUSH). Various State governments had set different, typically lower, retirement ages for AYUSH doctors compared to Allopathy doctors, leading to the present litigation.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The Primary Issue

The Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a conflict between two lines of its own judgments on whether doctors from modern (Allopathy) and traditional (AYUSH) medical systems can be treated as equals for determining service conditions like retirement age and pay. The Court had to determine if such a classification is reasonable and has a nexus with a legitimate state objective.

Analysis of Conflicting Precedents

• The Case for Parity (Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma):
  The judgment in New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. (2021) held that denying AYUSH doctors the enhanced retirement age given to Allopathy doctors was discriminatory. The Court reasoned that despite practicing different forms of medicine, both categories render "the very same service to the patients," and any classification would be unreasonable. However, this decision was heavily influenced by a subsequent government communication that extended the benefit to AYUSH doctors.

• The Case for Distinction (Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Dr. Solamon A.):
  Later, in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt & Ors. (2023) and Dr. Solamon A. v. State of Kerala and Ors., the Court distinguished the Ram Naresh Sharma ruling. It emphasized:
  Difference in Qualification and Work: The Court held that classification based on educational qualification is valid. It found that Allopathy doctors perform critical, life-saving functions like emergency treatment, trauma care, and complicated surgeries, which AYUSH doctors are not qualified or required to perform.
  Different Footfalls: Government hospitals manned by MBBS doctors have far higher patient footfalls than AYUSH institutions.
  Retirement Age vs. Pay Scales: The Court noted that the age of retirement stands on a different footing from pay scales and must be governed by the specific statutory rules applicable to each cadre.

The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Findings

The Bench acknowledged the ambiguity created by these conflicting decisions. It provided an in-depth analysis supporting the rationale for treating the two categories differently:

• Functional Disparity is Fundamental: The Court agreed with the reasoning in Dr. P.A. Bhatt, stating that the claim for parity must be decided based on "identity of functions, similarity in work carried out and comparable duties assigned." It found a fundamental functional disparity.

• Critical and Invasive Care: The judgment underscores that MBBS doctors deal with "critical care, immediate life-saving measures, invasive procedures including surgeries and even postmortem," which are outside the scope of practice for AYUSH doctors.

• Public Interest and Dearth of Doctors: The Court accepted the States' argument that enhancing the retirement age for Allopathy doctors was a policy measure to address the acute shortage of experienced MBBS doctors, a problem not present to the same extent in the AYUSH sector. This creates a reasonable nexus between the classification (different retirement ages) and the object sought to be achieved (ensuring sufficient qualified doctors for the public).

• Treatment of Equals and Unequals: The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that equals cannot be treated unequally, and unequals cannot be treated equally. It concluded that the qualitative distinctions in qualifications, functions, and responsibilities place Allopathy doctors in a "different class altogether."

5. Final Outcome and Directions

The Supreme Court did not deliver a final verdict on the merits. Instead, it made the following key decisions and interim arrangements:

1. Referral to a Larger Bench: Due to the divergence of opinion in its own precedents and the need for an authoritative pronouncement on this significant issue, the Court referred the matter to a larger Bench. The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

2. Interim Arrangements for AYUSH Doctors:
   Option to Continue: State governments are permitted to continue AYUSH doctors in service beyond their stipulated retirement age until they reach the retirement age of MBBS doctors.
   Financial Terms: If continued, these doctors will not receive regular pay and allowances. They will be paid half of the pay and allowances.
   Pension Implications: During this extension, they will not be entitled to pension.
   Final Settlement: If the larger Bench eventually rules in favour of the AYUSH doctors, the amounts paid during the extension will be adjusted. If the ruling is against them, the half-pay already received will be adjusted against their pension or other dues.
   Voluntary Retirement: If a doctor refuses the offer to continue without full pay, they will be treated as retired, and the outcome of the case will not affect them.

6. Multiple Choice Questions  Based on the Judgment

Question 1: What was the primary reason for the Supreme Court to refer the case of State of Rajasthan v. Anisur Rahman to a larger bench?
a) To increase the retirement age for all doctors uniformly.
b) To resolve the conflict between its own judgments in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and Dr. P.A. Bhatt.
c) To direct the government to create more AYUSH colleges.
d) To determine the curriculum for MBBS and AYUSH courses.

b) To resolve the conflict between its own judgments in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and Dr. P.A. Bhatt.

Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's analysis in this order, what is a key justification for having a different retirement age for Allopathy doctors compared to AYUSH doctors?
a) Allopathy is a more ancient medical system.
b) Allopathy doctors have a greater need for early retirement due to job stress.
c) There is a critical shortage of Allopathy doctors, and they perform essential life-saving functions not performed by AYUSH doctors.
d) AYUSH doctors are more expensive to employ.

c) There is a critical shortage of Allopathy doctors, and they perform essential life-saving functions not performed by AYUSH doctors.