Supreme Court Slams Rajasthan Government for Delayed Salaries and Discrimination Against Ayurvedic Doctors

The Supreme Court has criticized the Rajasthan government for the delayed release of salaries to Ayurvedic doctors, calling it "stepmotherly treatment." The issue arose after the reinstatement of these doctors following a Rajasthan High Court order, yet their salaries have not been disbursed for the past five months.

Background of the Case

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing the Rajasthan government’s petition challenging the High Court’s directive, which mandated the state to grant Ayurvedic doctors an enhanced superannuation age, equivalent to that of allopathic doctors. Despite the High Court’s order to reinstate these doctors, they have not received their salaries for the last five months.

The High Court, in its February 28 judgment, sided with the Ayurvedic doctors, allowing a batch of writ petitions that sought parity in retirement age with allopathic doctors. The petitioners argued that increasing the retirement age of allopathic doctors from 60 to 62 years, effective March 31, 2016, while excluding Ayurvedic doctors, was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The High Court referenced a similar Supreme Court judgment in State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma & Ors, which dismissed the state's appeal against the High Court's earlier decision to grant parity in superannuation for Ayurvedic doctors.

Supreme Court's Response

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the government's inaction. The CJI questioned, "They are all working as doctors. Why is this stepmotherly treatment to Ayurvedic doctors? Why haven't you released their salaries?" The bench directed the state government to clear all outstanding salaries within one week, emphasizing that there is no stay on the High Court's order.

The Court instructed that the overdue salaries must be paid to all affected doctors, not just the respondents in the case. The bench also asked counsels to compile a list of similar cases to address the broader issue of whether Ayurvedic doctors should receive the same retirement benefits as their allopathic counterparts.

Implications

The Supreme Court’s stern stance highlights the ongoing struggle of Ayurvedic doctors in Rajasthan for equal treatment and fair compensation. The delay in salary disbursements despite judicial orders not only affects the livelihoods of the doctors but also raises questions about the state's commitment to enforcing court directives.

Case Reference

State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Pyare Lal Meena and Ors., SLP(C) No. 10560/2024.