- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Different Retirement Age For AYUSH...
Different Retirement Age For AYUSH & Allopathic Doctors Not Justified : Supreme Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
4 Aug 2021 10:28 AM IST
The Supreme Court has observed that there is no rational justification for different age of retirement for doctors practicing AYUSH system of medicines and allopathic doctors. The Court 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...
The Supreme Court has observed that there is no rational justification for different age of retirement for doctors practicing AYUSH system of medicines and allopathic doctors. The Court 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 observed while upholding the High Court judgment.
The dispute in the case related to the applicability of an order issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 31.05.2016 to raise the age of superannuation for the General Duty Medical Officers [GDMO] of the Central Health Scheme [CHS] from 60 years to 65 years. The issue was if the order was applicable to ayurvedic doctors covered under the Ministry of AYUSH.
On 30.06.2016, the NDMC adopted the Government of India order by issuing office order dated 30.06.2016 and enhanced the retirement age to 65 years for the Allopathic doctors working in the NDMC. Ayurvedic doctors working in the NDMC were aggrieved with their exclusion from the order enhancing age of retirement. Therefore, some of them approached the CAT.
Later, on 27.09.2017, the Ministry of AYUSH issued an order enhancing the age of superannuation of AYUSH doctors as 65 years. Meanwhile, the CAT had allowed the applications filed by Ayurvedic doctors, accepting their argument of unjust discrimination.
The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's order and directed the NDMC to disburse payment of arrears of salary and allowances to the ayurvedic doctors, who continue to serve with the NDMC beyond the age of 60 years. The High Court also held that the AYUSH Ministry's order enhancing the age of retirement must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016, the date on which MoHFW issued its order.
Approving the findings of the Delhi High Court and CAT, the Supreme Court said :
"The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D. 4019/4/2016¬E¬I (AYUSH)) dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent¬ doctors, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion".
Also from the judgment- State Cannot Plead Financial Burden To Deny Salary For Legally Serving Doctors : Supreme Court
Case Details
Case Title : North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and others
Coram : Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy
Citation : LL 2021 SC 346
