AYUSH doctors entitled to same 65-year superannuation age as allopathic doctors under CHS with retrospective benefits

The SC held that AYUSH doctors are entitled to the same enhanced superannuation age of 65 years as allopathic doctors under CHS, finding no rational justification for differential treatment since both categories render service to patients. The court ordered retrospective application of the AYUSH Ministry order from 31.05.2016, directing payment of full salary arrears within 8 weeks with 6% interest for delayed payment beyond the stipulated period. The appeal was disposed of with all consequences following from this conclusion.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Ayurvedic doctors to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years.
2. Discrimination between Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors regarding retirement age.
3. Payment of arrears and salary to Ayurvedic doctors who continued to work beyond 60 years under interim court orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Ayurvedic doctors to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years:
The central issue was whether Ayurvedic doctors under AYUSH were entitled to the same enhanced superannuation age of 65 years as allopathic doctors. Initially, the retirement age for General Duty Medical Officers (GDMO) of the Central Health Scheme (CHS), Dentists, and AYUSH doctors was 60 years. The Government of India, through an order dated 31.05.2016, enhanced the retirement age to 65 years for allopathic doctors. However, this enhancement was not initially extended to Ayurvedic doctors. The Tribunal, in its order dated 24.08.2017, declared that Ayurvedic doctors were entitled to the same benefit, which was later upheld by the High Court. The Ministry of AYUSH subsequently issued an order on 24.11.2017, enhancing the superannuation age for AYUSH doctors to 65 years, effective from 27.09.2017.

2. Discrimination between Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors regarding retirement age:
The Tribunal and the High Court found that the differential treatment between allopathic and Ayurvedic doctors regarding the retirement age was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Tribunal held that the applicants (Ayurvedic doctors) were entitled to the same service conditions, including the enhanced retirement age of 65 years, as applicable to allopathic doctors under the CHS. The High Court affirmed this view, noting that the NDMC had adopted the Ministry's decision for allopathic doctors but had not extended the same benefit to Ayurvedic doctors until the AYUSH Ministry's order dated 24.11.2017. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, stating that the classification was unreasonable since both categories of doctors performed the same function of treating patients.

3. Payment of arrears and salary to Ayurvedic doctors who continued to work beyond 60 years under interim court orders:
The Tribunal and the High Court directed that Ayurvedic doctors who continued to work beyond 60 years under interim court orders should be paid their due salary and arrears. The Supreme Court upheld this directive, rejecting the argument that the respondents were not entitled to remuneration because they served under interim orders. The Court emphasized the principle "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit," meaning the act of the court shall prejudice no one, and stated that the respondents must be paid their lawful remuneration. The Court also highlighted that denying salary for work done would violate the respondents' rights under Articles 14, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered the disbursement of full salary arrears to the respondents within eight weeks, with interest for delayed payment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court, affirming that Ayurvedic doctors under AYUSH were entitled to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years, similar to allopathic doctors. The Court found the differential treatment discriminatory and ordered the disbursement of salary arrears to the Ayurvedic doctors who continued to work beyond 60 years under interim court orders. The appeals were disposed of with directions for timely payment of arrears and interest for delays.

---