The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed displeasure over the Rajasthan government’s failure to comply with earlier judgments directing it to grant retirement-related benefits to an AYUSH doctor who retired at the age of 60, despite the applicable retirement age being 62. The Court directed the State to make the payment before pursuing its arguments on the broader question of parity between AYUSH and allopathic doctors, which is pending consideration before a three-judge bench.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a matter concerning the State’s challenge to directions requiring it to extend the benefit of two additional years of service to the doctor. The State sought to rely on a subsequent judgment and the pending reference concerning the entitlement of AYUSH doctors to parity in service conditions.
The bench made clear that the pending reference could not be used to avoid compliance with the earlier judgments applicable to the doctor. Justice Bagchi pointed out that the doctor’s batchmates had already received the benefit and that the High Court had only directed the State to calculate and pay the amounts due. The Court also observed that if the State ultimately succeeded in the broader proceedings, it could explore recovery of the amount paid.
“
“You are now adopting a fresh route not to comply with the two judgments of this Court. You had to pay. This subsequent judgment will not enable you to avoid the earlier two judgments. You have taken sufficient time to comply. Now you cannot say there is a similar issue pending before three judges of the Supreme Court. In the meantime, you have to comply,” Justice V. Mohana observed.
Justice Bagchi also questioned why the State was relying on the subsequent judgment and the pending reference instead of first complying with the specific orders in the doctor’s case. When Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee sought to have the matter admitted so that the larger issue could also be examined, Justice Bagchi pointed out that contempt proceedings were pending before the High Court and asked the State to comply with the payment directions before responding to those proceedings.
The Chief Justice acknowledged that the Supreme Court had delivered a judgment taking the view that AYUSH doctors were not entitled to claim parity with allopathic doctors, while another decision had taken a different approach but had not independently examined the parity issue. The bench distinguished those broader questions from the obligation to comply with the existing orders in the individual case.
The Bench directed counsel to first refer to the judgments under which the doctor had been granted relief, rather than rely on subsequent decisions. The State ultimately undertook to make the payment within two weeks. The bench directed it to comply and return thereafter, keeping the matter pending in the meantime.