Ayurvedic Doctors Entitled To Continue In Service Till Completion Of Age Of 62 Yrs: Rajasthan High Court

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. LL 2021 SC 346. The court opined that the Supreme Court has left no scope for arguments on the part of the respondents to defend their action of discrimination in the matter.

During the course of hearing, the court was informed that the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62 years w.e.f. 31.03.2016. The court noted that some of the petitioners are still working, while some of the petitioners have retired after attaining the age of 60 years after the issuance of notification.

In this regard, Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shuha Mehta, while allowing the petitions, opined,

"All those petitioners, who have so retired after 31.03.2016, shall be deemed to have continued in service upto 62 years. This will require the respondents authority to pass necessary orders treating them in service till attaining the age of 62 years in individual cases with consequential benefits of continuity of service. All other consequential action would also be required to be taken which include refixation of pension and other benefits. Those, who have been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, but have not completed 62 years of age, be reinstated in service forthwith."

Supreme Court's Decision

In North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. LL 2021 SC 346, the Supreme Court had observed that there is no rational justification for different age of retirement for doctors practicing AYUSH system of medicines and allopathic doctors. The Apex Court had observed that the mode of treatment by itself will not qualify as an "intelligible differentia" between two categories as far as retirement age is concerned.

A division bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy was deciding an appeal filed by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation against a Delhi High Court judgment which held that AYUSH doctors working under NDMC were entitled to the enhancement of retirement age as 65 years, with retrospective effect from the date on which such enhancement was given to allopathic doctors.

"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. Therefore, such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution", the Supreme Court had observed while upholding the High Court judgment.

Arguments

Relying upon North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the matter of fixing age of superannuation, no discriminatory treatment can be meted out as between the Allopathic Doctors and Ayurvedic Doctors. He submitted that the Supreme Court has held that as the doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients, the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable.

The counsel for the State submitted that the classification for the purposes of prescribing different age of superannuation for Allopathic Doctors and Ayurvedic Doctors is based on rational integra and is a valid classification as not only their qualifications are different but their pay scales are also different and they have been recruited under different sets of recruitment rules. According to him, the kind of expertise, which is used by the Allopathic Doctors to treat a variety of diseases including surgical operations, distinguishes them from the Ayurvedic Doctors, whose area and extent of practice is not as extensive as that of Allopathic Doctors. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioners are not entitled to similar treatment as Allopathic Doctors in the matter of age of superannuation.

Counsels for the Petitioners: Dr. Abhinav Sharma with Pooja Vijayvargiya, Ravi Kant Sharma with Shalini, Tanveer Ahamad with Manish Parihar, Kailash Chand Sharma, Nitesh Kumar Garg

Counsels for the Respondents: AAG Chiranji Lal Saini with Srijana Shresth, Dy. Government Counsel Hari Kishan Saini

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 208