New Delhi:The question of whether doctors practising under indigenous medical systems (AYUSH, Ayurveda, Homoepathy, Unani, etc.) can be equated with allopathic doctors regarding service conditions, such asretirement ageand pay scales, is being considered by theSupreme Court, which has now referred the matter to a larger Bench. Reference with this regard was made in a batch of pleas that challenged the differential treatment by States in prescribing retirement age and benefits for doctors of different systems of medicine. Taking note of the divergence of opinion and conflicting judgments on this issue, the Apex Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran referred the question to a larger bench. "There is divergence of opinion insofar as whether the MBBS doctors and doctors practicing indigenous systems of medicine can be treated equally, for the purpose of service conditions, which on principle, it is trite cannot result in treatment of unequals as equals. 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 Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side,"the top court bench mentioned in the order. While considering the special leave petitions, the Apex Court bench noted that reliance was placed on a series of judgments which took different stands on the question of retirement age and pay scales. For instance, in the 2021 judgment in New Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors., a two-judge bench of the Court observed that the AYUSH doctors could not be denied the benefit of a higher retirement age granted to allopathic doctors merely by virtue of practising a different medical system when their work is comparable. The court observed that the classification based on medical systems, without a rational nexus to job functions or public interest, may amount to unreasonable discrimination. However, a coordinate bench held in the 2023 judgment in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt & Ors., that the classification based on educational qualification and medical specialization, distinguishing allopathic doctors from AYUSH practitioners, was allowed, given the differences in their training and scope of practice. In that judgment, it was held that the AYUSH doctors were not entitled to equal pay as Allopathic doctors because their functions were not the same. A similar view was also taken in the case of Dr. Solamon A. v. State of Kerala and Ors., which held that AYUSH doctors cannot claim parity with medical doctors. Apart from this, a reference was also made to the decision in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others, where the court observed that an employee of CCRAS, Ministry of AYUSH, was not automatically entitled to demand parity in superannuation age with AYUSH doctors, just because he treated OPD and IPD patients. Referring to these judgments, the Apex Court on Friday observed, Noting that the court could not ignore the submission of the States that an enhancement of the retirement age was only to ensure that there were sufficient experienced medical practitioners available to treat the public, the Apex Court bench also highlighted the dearth of medical practitioners as occurring in allopathy, which does not exist in the indigenous systems of medicine especially when critical life-saving therapeutic, interventional and surgical care is not carried out by the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine. On the matter required to be considered by a larger bench, the top court bench observed, The bench further ordered, To view the order, click on the link below: https://.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-ayush-vs-allopathy-305017.pdf Also Read: Should Ayurveda practitioners Have the Same Retirement Age as Allopathic doctors? SC Issues Notice