Different Retirement age for Ayurvedic and Allopathic Doctors Unconstitutional: Rajasthan HC

Jaipur: Providing relief to three Ayurvedic doctors, the Rajasthan High Court recently stated that setting different retirement age for Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Such an observation came from the HC bench comprising of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani while it was considering a plea challenging a notification issued by the Rajasthan Government which had enhanced the retirement age from 60 to 62 years only for the Allopathic doctors and excluded those practicing Ayurveda.

The impugned notification dated 31.02.2016 extended the age of superannuation to only the doctors Medical and Health Services and not to the Doctors of Ayurvedic and Bharatiya Chikitsa Vibhag of Government of Rajasthan.

Filing the plea, the Ayurvedic doctors demanded that the notification gets quashed since it deprived the doctors of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service from getting the benefit of enhanced age of retirement upto 62 years. Apart from this, the doctors also prayed to the Court for issuing directions to the Government to hold that the Ayurvedic doctors are also entitled to similar extension regarding the retirement age along with consequential benefits.

While considering the matter, the HC bench noted that the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. had dealt with a similar issue. In that case, the High Court had referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. and noted, "The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court leaves no scope for arguments on the part of respondents to defend their action of discrimination in the matter of fixing age of superannuation of Ayurvedic Doctors and it has to be consequently held that they are also entitled to continue in service till completion of age of 62 years, which is applicable in the case of Allopathic doctors."

However, the counsel for the State argued that the relief could not be provided as the Supreme Court judgment applied prospectively, has already been dealt by the court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors.

Taking note of the arguments, the HC bench observed, "We place on record the fact regarding petitioners having already retired after attaining the age of 60 years after the issuance of notification enhancing the age of retirement from 60 to 62 years in respect of Allopathic doctors. As the petitioners have retired after 31.03.2016, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief which has been granted by us in the aforesaid case. However, the petitioners shall be deemed to have continued in service till attaining the age of 62 years."

"This will require the respondent-authorities to pass necessary orders treating the petitioners to be in service till attaining the age of 62 years will all consequential benefits of continuity of service. We also make it clear that all other consequential action will also be required to be taken which include appropriate orders with regard to the pensionary benefits which the petitioners have already availed. Consequential orders in this regard shall also be required to be passed by the respondents," further read the judgment.

To read the order, click on the link below.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rajasthan-hc-order-187252.pdf

Also Read: Rajasthan HC slams medical college for 'Bench Hunting', upholds Rs 10 lakh costs