The Supreme Court today (September 27) expressed displeasure over the ‘stepmotherly treatment’ of Ayurvedic doctors by the state of Rajasthan, with a five-month delay in announcing the salaries of doctors reinstated after a High Court order. expressed.
bench CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a petition filed by the state of Rajasthan against the Rajasthan High Court’s order granting enhanced retirement benefits to Ayurvedic doctors on par with allopathic doctors. The doctors’ lawyers reported that after the high court’s order was rejected, the Ayurvedic doctors have been reinstated but have not received their salaries for the past five months.
Taking seriously the delay in announcing salaries of Ayurvedic doctors, the CJI said: They all work as doctors, so why is this stepmotherly treatment given to Ayurveda (doctors)? Why aren’t salaries of Ayurvedic doctors made public? ”
The court directed the state government to release the salaries of the accused and all similarly posted doctors within a week as there was no stay in implementation of the High Court order.
“For the past five months, the respondents have not been paid their salaries despite the HC’s orders. We have made it clear that we cannot withhold monitoring of the HC’s decision and ensure that the arrears of salaries are not paid. If not, the payment, if any, shall be settled within one week not only for the respondent but also for all similarly placed doctors.”
The court had earlier issued notices on similar issues.
The court asked the lawyers to prepare a list of all such cases arising from the same legal question: whether the retirement age of Ayurvedic doctors is the same as that of allopathic doctors.
background
The Rajasthan High Court on February 28 allowed a series of writ petitions seeking to extend the retirement age of Ayurvedic doctors on par with allopathic doctors. The court noted that the state authorities had extended the retirement pension for allopathic doctors from 60 years to 62 years as of March 31, 2016. The petitioners argued that such selective extension of retirement age is discriminatory against Ayurvedic doctors and is therefore in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The high court pointed out that the Supreme Court had given judgments in similar cases in Rajasthan and Ors. v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma & Ors dismissed the state’s challenge to an order of the Rajasthan High Court granting Ayurvedic doctors the same superannuation relief as allopathic doctors.
The High Court directed the state authorities to order reinstatement of the Ayurvedic doctor, who has not attained the age of 62 years, and increase his retirement allowance in line with previous cases of a similar nature.
Case details: State of Rajasthan and ORS. vs. Pierre Lar Mina and ORS.SLP(C) No. 10560/2024
