Before you argue, you have to pay! SC to Rajasthan Govt over AYUSH practitioner's retirement benefits

New Delhi: The Supreme Court directed the Rajasthan Government to comply with earlier judicial orders concerning the retirement benefits of an AYUSH practitioner who retired at the age of 60, instead of the age of 62 that applies to allopathic doctors in the state.

The Court made it clear that the pendency of a larger legal question concerning parity between AYUSH and allopathic doctors could not be used as a ground to withhold payments already directed by the courts.

According to a report by LawChakra, the Supreme Court asked the state government to first comply with the earlier judgments and clear the doctor's retirement benefits before pursuing its appeal. The Bench, however, kept the state's appeal pending for further consideration.

During the hearing, Justice reportedly remarked:

"Before you argue, you have to pay."

The dispute concerns the difference in retirement ages prescribed for AYUSH and allopathic doctors serving under the Rajasthan Government.

As per the case details, the Rajasthan Government increased the retirement age of allopathic doctors from 60 to 62 years with effect from March 31, 2016, citing the need to address a shortage of doctors in the state.

However, AYUSH doctors practising systems of medicine such as Ayurveda, Unani and Homoeopathy continued to retire at the age of 60.

The difference in retirement ages was subsequently challenged before the Rajasthan High Court.

The High Court held that the differential treatment was discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution and ruled that AYUSH doctors whose retirement dates fell after March 31, 2016, were entitled to be treated as continuing in service until the age of 62.

The Rajasthan Government challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court.

When the matter came up in September 2024, the Supreme Court did not stay the High Court's ruling and directed the state to release pending salaries of reinstated AYUSH doctors within one week.

Subsequently, on October 17, 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising then Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran noted conflicting judicial opinions on the question of parity between AYUSH and allopathic doctors.

The Court referred the broader question of whether AYUSH practitioners should receive parity with allopathic doctors in service conditions, retirement age and pay to a larger bench.

As an interim arrangement, the Court permitted states to continue AYUSH practitioners in service up to the retirement age applicable to allopathic doctors on half pay and allowances, subject to adjustment depending on the final outcome.

During the October 28 hearing, the Supreme Court was informed that other doctors from the concerned AYUSH doctor's batch had already received their benefits.

The Rajasthan High Court had also directed the state to determine and release the doctor's dues. However, the payment had not been made, and contempt proceedings concerning non-compliance were pending before the High Court.

Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee, appearing for the Rajasthan Government, submitted that the state was willing to make the payment but requested the Supreme Court to admit the appeal so that the broader question concerning parity between AYUSH and allopathic doctors could be examined.

The Bench, however, emphasised that the pending legal dispute did not relieve the state of its obligation to comply with existing judicial directions.

Justice reportedly observed:

"This subsequent judgment will not enable you to avoid the earlier two judgments."

The Court noted that the reference to a larger bench did not automatically suspend the operation of previous orders directing payment of benefits.

The Chief Justice also referred to the divergence in earlier judicial decisions on the question of parity between AYUSH and allopathic doctors.

While one judgment had rejected the claim for parity, another had taken a different view, leading to the larger question remaining unresolved.

The state's counsel argued that the retirement age of doctors had been increased to ensure the availability of experienced medical practitioners for public healthcare services.

However, the Bench reiterated that the unresolved legal issue could not justify continued non-compliance with earlier directions.

The Supreme Court directed the Rajasthan Government to comply with the earlier judgments while allowing the state's appeal to remain pending.

According to LawChakra, the Bench observed:

"Comply with it first. If you succeed subsequently, you can recover the amount from the employees. Comply and come back. We will keep this pending."

The Court thus permitted the state to pursue its legal challenge while requiring compliance with the existing directions concerning payment of retirement benefits.

It also indicated that the state could recover the amounts paid if it subsequently succeeded in its appeal.

Also Read:Telangana AYUSH doctors call off strike after stipend hike assurance