Gauhati High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Assam Govt’s Decision To Not Increase Retirement Age Of Ayurvedic Doctors From 60 To 65

The Gauhati High Court on Wednesday dismissed a bunch of writ petitions challenging Assam government’s 2016 decision to not increase the age of retirement of Ayurvedic doctors from 60 to 65 years. The retirement age of Allopathic doctors and dental surgeons working under the Health & Family Welfare department was increased in 2016.

Justice Suman Shyam said questions such as enhancement of age of superannuation are matters strictly lying within the realm of policy decision of the State and once there is a Cabinet decision in the matter and such policy decision is found to be based on reasonable grounds, the same cannot be termed as irrational, arbitrary or discriminatory.

"In such circumstances, the scope of judicial review of the Courts in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution would be extremely limited,” said the court.

A notification on increase of retirement age of Allopathic doctors and dental surgeons was issued in pursuance of the Cabinet decision dated July 27, 2016. The petitioners assailed the notification, contending that the Ayurvedic doctors are performing similar nature of duties as compared to their Allopathic or Dental counterparts and therefore, excluding the Ayurvedic doctors from the purview of the notification, in so far as the same relates to the enhancement of retirement age of the doctors is concerned, is highly arbitrary and discriminatory.

It was further argued that in view of the notification dated November 24, 2017 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Uniani, Sidddha and Homoeopathy increasing the age of superannuation of all AYUSH doctors under the Ministry of AYUSH working in the CGHS Hospitals or Dispensaries to 65 years with effect from September 27, 2017, the State Government of Assam was under a legal obligation to enhance the age of retirement of the Ayurvedic doctors in Assam also to 65 years.

B.C. Das, the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, argued that every decision of the State would be open to challenge in the court of law for examining the constitutional validity of such decision on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any differential treatment extended to similarly situated employees would be highly discriminatory and therefore, violative of the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, he added.

He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & others wherein the Supreme Court held that no classification between the Allopathic doctors and their Ayurvedic counterparts was permissible and noted that Ayurvedic doctors were also entitled to the benefit of enhancement of retirement age as notified by the Central Government’s order dated November 24, 2017.

On the other hand, D. Saikia, the Advocate General of Assam submitted that the decision to not enhance the age of retirement of Ayurvedic doctors from 60 years to 65 years was taken to tackle the growing unemployment amongst the Ayurvedic doctors as well as the shortfall of Allopathic doctors in the State.

It was further argued that since the Cabinet decision based on which the impugned notification dated July 30, 2016 was issued, is not under challenge in these writ petitions, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

The court observed that ‘Health’ being a State subject, there can be no doubt or dispute about the fact that any decision/circular/notification of the Ministry of Health/AYUSH Ministry, Government of India would not be automatically applicable to the employees of the State Government, unless the same is specifically adopted by the Government of that State by making specific amendments to the Service Rules governing the terms and conditions of service of the respective categories of employees.

The court relied upon the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Anil Kumar Saikia (Dr.) v. State of Assam and others wherein it was held that in the absence of challenge to the Cabinet decision the consequential notification of enhancement of age of superannuation would not be maintainable in the eyes of law.

It said that although there was a classification made in the matter of enhancement of age of superannuation between two different categories of doctors, yet, such classification not only has a reasonable basis but also has a public purpose to be achieved.

“Therefore, it cannot be said that the same is not based on reasonable classification. Once it is found that the differentiation is based on reasonable classification, the decision cannot be held to be violative of the principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the above context, it would also be pertinent to mention herein that a similar stand of the State regarding fixing of age of retirement so as to provide employment avenue to large number of educated youth in the State was found to be valid by the Supreme Court in the case of Nagaland Senior Government Employees Welfare Association and others v. State of Nagaland & Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 643 and it was held that such a provision need not be held to be against public interest,” said the court.

Case Title: Assam Ayurvedic Doctors Service Association and 2 Ors. v. The State of Assam & 5 Ors.

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment