Introduction:
In Dr. Arun Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 942/2025], the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit reaffirmed the constitutional principle of equality by holding that Ayurvedic doctors performing the same duties as Allopathic doctors cannot be subjected to discriminatory treatment in terms of retirement age. The Court ruled that Ayurvedic doctors under the Department of Ayurved and Bhartiya Chikitsa, Government of Rajasthan, are entitled to the same enhanced retirement age of 62 years, along with all consequential benefits such as refixation of pension and arrears. The judgment came in response to a contempt petition filed by Ayurvedic practitioners after the State delayed compliance with earlier court directions, even after the dismissal of its Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court on 30 January 2024.
Arguments of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, Ayurvedic doctors serving under the Department of Ayurved and Bhartiya Chikitsa, contended that despite clear judicial directives equating the service conditions of Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors, the State authorities failed to comply fully with the orders. They argued that while Allopathic doctors had their retirement age enhanced from 60 to 62 years through a State notification dated 31 March 2016, Ayurvedic doctors performing identical functions were denied the same benefit without any rational basis. The petitioners relied heavily on the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors., which unequivocally held that creating a distinction in the retirement age between Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors violated Article 14 of the Constitution. They emphasized that both categories of doctors discharge similar responsibilities, treat patients, and serve in government health institutions—hence, any differential treatment in retirement age amounts to arbitrary classification.
The petitioners also submitted that after the dismissal of the State’s SLP by the Supreme Court, there remained no justification for the delay in reinstating Ayurvedic doctors who had been prematurely retired upon attaining 60 years of age. They contended that the delay in implementing the High Court’s prior orders caused severe financial and professional hardship. Despite repeated representations, the authorities failed to grant reinstatement, payment of salaries for the extended service period, and re-fixation of pension and arrears. Furthermore, the petitioners argued that the State’s requirement that they refund retirement benefits received for the age of 60 before reinstatement was unjustified and punitive, as they were not at fault for the State’s delay in implementing the judicial directives.
In essence, the petitioners maintained that the State’s inaction amounted to willful disobedience of binding judicial orders and sought enforcement of the enhanced retirement age of 62 years with all attendant monetary and service benefits, including salary arrears, pension revision, and notional continuity in service for the intervening period.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On behalf of the State of Rajasthan, Additional Advocate General Bhuwnesh Sharma, assisted by other counsels, submitted that the government had substantially complied with the directions of the Court and that there was no deliberate or willful disobedience. It was contended that after the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the government had taken active steps to implement the judgment, but due to its wide ramifications across the State—impacting thousands of Ayurvedic doctors and related administrative processes—the implementation required careful policy formulation and financial assessment. The State argued that while it recognized the binding nature of the Court’s judgment, the administrative and procedural requirements caused inevitable delays.
The respondents further contended that the State had issued necessary orders extending the age of superannuation of Ayurvedic doctors to 62 years, thus bringing parity with Allopathic doctors. However, as some doctors had already retired at 60 and received full retirement benefits, they were required to deposit those benefits if they sought reinstatement and salary for the extended period. The State justified this condition by citing the principle against double benefits—arguing that no employee can simultaneously enjoy pensionary benefits and salary for the same period. It relied upon judicial precedents, including Vijay Prakash Gautam v. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha & Ors., to argue that this condition did not amount to contempt but was a logical and lawful administrative step to prevent unjust enrichment.
The State also clarified that the reinstatement orders were in progress and that the delay was procedural, not deliberate. It assured the Court of its commitment to fully implement the judgment and argued that contempt proceedings were unnecessary since the State was already complying with the directions in spirit and substance.
Court’s Observations and Findings:
The Division Bench began its analysis by reaffirming the principle that equality under Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits arbitrary discrimination between similarly situated individuals. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors., the Court observed that Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors discharge identical public functions, both serving as medical officers responsible for treating patients and safeguarding public health. Hence, any differentiation in their age of superannuation would be unreasonable and violative of Article 14.
The Court underscored that the State’s classification had no intelligible differentia, nor any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Both sets of doctors belong to government medical services, perform similar duties, and serve the same purpose of providing healthcare. Therefore, depriving Ayurvedic doctors of the extended retirement age granted to Allopathic doctors constituted an arbitrary and discriminatory classification.
While the Court acknowledged the State’s argument that the implementation of the judgment had wide administrative ramifications, it criticized the inordinate delay in executing reinstatement orders even after the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court on 30 January 2024. The Court noted that in Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Akhil Arora & Ors., the State took over nine months to issue reinstatement orders, indicating a pattern of bureaucratic lethargy and procedural indifference. Such delays, the Court emphasized, defeat the purpose of judicial directives and undermine the principles of fairness and prompt compliance with the rule of law.
The Bench further referred to Vijay Prakash Gautam v. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha & Ors., where it was held that while reinstated Ayurvedic doctors cannot simultaneously draw pension benefits and salary for the same period, they are entitled to notional benefits for the intervening years between 60 and 62 years of age. The Court observed that the condition imposed by the State for refunding retirement benefits was not in itself contemptuous, provided that doctors were granted due notional and service benefits for the period in question.
Importantly, the Court reiterated that equality of treatment in public employment extends beyond mere pay parity to include all service conditions, including retirement age and consequential benefits. It observed that once the Supreme Court had affirmed the High Court’s decision equating the retirement age of Ayurvedic doctors to that of Allopathic doctors, the State had no discretion to delay or dilute the implementation. The refusal or delay in implementing such orders amounted to a breach of constitutional duty and contempt of judicial authority.
The Bench also stressed that contempt jurisdiction is not meant to punish but to ensure compliance with judicial orders. Since the State had ultimately taken steps toward implementation, the Court refrained from penal action but directed the authorities to process all pending representations expeditiously and grant notional benefits to all eligible Ayurvedic doctors in line with earlier judicial directions. The State was instructed to ensure parity in superannuation benefits, pension revision, and arrears without any further delay.
In conclusion, the Court held that Ayurvedic doctors are entitled to the same enhanced retirement age of 62 years as Allopathic doctors and to all consequential monetary and service benefits. The delay in implementation was noted, but since the State had begun compliance, the contempt petition was disposed of with directions to finalize the process and extend the benefits in a time-bound manner.
Court’s Judgment:
With the above observations, the Division Bench disposed of the contempt petition, holding that Ayurvedic doctors are legally entitled to serve until 62 years of age on par with Allopathic doctors and that all consequential service and monetary benefits must be extended to them. The Court directed the State to ensure that no further delay occurs in implementing the directions of the Court and that all affected doctors receive appropriate arrears, refixation of pension, and notional benefits. The Bench recognized the administrative complexity but underscored that bureaucratic delay cannot justify continued denial of fundamental equality under Article 14. The judgment thus reinforced the constitutional ethos of non-discrimination and equal opportunity in public service.