Rajasthan High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Ayurvedic Doctors Before It Who Retired At 60 Yrs Age But Are Yet To Turn 62 Yrs
While adjudicating a batch of writ petitions filed by Ayurvedic doctors, Rajasthan High Court has held that those doctors before it who have been superannuated on account of turning 60 years of age must be reinstated if they haven't attained 62 years of age by now.The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal also noted that one of the...
While adjudicating a batch of writ petitions filed by Ayurvedic doctors, Rajasthan High Court has held that those doctors before it who have been superannuated on account of turning 60 years of age must be reinstated if they haven't attained 62 years of age by now.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal also noted that one of the petitioner doctors who retired after 31.03.2016 will be deemed to have continued in service till he attained 62 years of age. The court also iterated that those petitioners who haven't been superannuated by now will continue in service till they attain the age of 62 years.
Earlier, the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62 years w.e.f 31.03.2016 through a gazette notification. Before the High Court, the writ petitioners submitted that keeping the age of superannuation different for Allopathy doctors and Ayurvedic doctors is violative of Article 14.
“….we are of the view that insofar as the present petitions are concerned, the petitioners herein are identically situated as Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma and others in whose favour earlier an order was passed by this Court and against which SLP has now been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.01.2024”, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed after hearing both sides.
The court made the above direction in light of the apex court's dismissal of a special leave petition preferred by the state against a decision rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in July 2022. Rajasthan High Court, in Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma, held that the age of superannuation of Ayush doctors must be raised to 62 years, i.e., the same age as applicable to Allopathy doctors since 2016.
On 30.01.2024, the special leave petition against the said judgment was dismissed by the apex court.
Despite the said dismissal, the state informed the High Court in the current batch of writ petitions that it intended to file a review petition against the Supreme Court's order which was in ultimately in favour of the doctors.
However, the division bench seized of the current matter noted that such contemplation by the state is not reason enough to deprive the relief sought by the doctors.
“…May be that the State is contemplating to file review petition, however, that could not be a ground for this Court not to pass similar orders in the present cases also because the petitioners in this batch of petitions are identically situated as Dr Mahesh Chand Sharma and others...”, the court further added.
The petitioners' counsels argued before the division bench that there is no further need to keep the directions issued by the Court in 2022 in abeyance since the special leave petition against the same has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Reliance was also placed on the landmark decision in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors., LL 2021 SC 346 by the counsels.
In North Delhi Municipal Corporation, a division bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy observed that there is no rational justification for different age of retirement for doctors practising the AYUSH system of medicines and allopathic doctors. The court also opined then that the different modes of treatment in themselves would not qualify as an "intelligible differentia" as far as fixing the retirement age is concerned.
“…"The only difference is that AYUSH doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using Allopathy for tending to their patients. In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia…”, the apex court had noted in the August 2021 judgment.
Counsels For Petitioners: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Mr. Manish Parihar, Mr. Brijesh Bhardwaj
Counsels For Respondents: AG Rajendra Prasad assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma & Ms. Harshita Thakral
Case Title: Dr. Mahendra Singh Jakhar & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. and Connected Matters
Case No: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 37