Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Jameela Hafeez vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2025
1 WP-7882-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 7882 of 2025
(DR.JAMEELA HAFEEZ Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 25-03-2025
Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.D. Singh - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent -
State.
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) It is most humbly prayed that appropriate writ/order/direction
be issued to declare Sub-rule (1-c)/(a) of the impugned
notification dated 06.05.2011 (Annexure P/1) bearing number
2832-178-21-A-(Pra.) as ultra virus due to the exclusionary
character of leaving out Government Doctors of
Ayush/Department.
(ii) That, it is further prayed that appropriate/ Writ/ Order be issued
to respondent No.1 to include Government Doctors of Ayush
Department in the said notification for getting benefit of increased
age of retirement.
(iii) That, it is further prayed that appropriate/ Writ/ Order be
issued thereby setting aside the order dated 28.01.2025(Annexure
P/5), as far as it relates to the petitioner and directing the
respondents to allow the petitioner to work under the Ayush
Department to continue till the age of 65 years.
(iv) It is further prayed that respondents kindly be directed to
count the petitioner's services up to the age of sixty-five (65)years
and be made entitled for all the consequential benefits including
arrears.
(v) Any other relief deemed fit and proper be also granted.
(vi) Cost of the petition."
2 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-
applicant/respondent-State has opposed the present application by submitting
that its a policy decision of the State and cannot be interfered by this Court.
Moreover, in case of Dr. Solamon A Vs. State of Kerala passed in SLP(C)
No.3946/2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the case of
State of Gujarat and others Vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and others (2023) 15 SCC
2 WP-7882-2025
257 has dismissed the SLP by stating that there cannot be parity with the
Ayush Doctors and the Allopathic Doctors.
3. Counsel for the respondent/State fairly stated that in case of Dr.
P.A. Bhatt (supra) which is of April 2023, issue was pay parity whereas in
case of Dr. Solamon A (supra) regarding the age of retirement from 56 to 60
years for Ayush Doctors whereas for the Allopathic Doctors, the age was
already 60 years of retirement. But the fact remains that Coordinate Bench at
Indore in WP No.3043/2025 vide order dated 30/01/2025 has held that the
Ayush Doctors (petitioner therein) is also to continue till the age of 65
years at par with the Allopathic Doctor. Whereas, the counsel for the
applicant has heavily relied upon the order dated 30/01/2024 passed in I.A.
No.182071/2022 in SLP No.14308-14318/2022 filed by the respondents
therein, the Hon'ble Supreme by considering the judgment of Ayush Doctor
i n North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors.
reported in (2021) 17 SCC 642 held as under:
Heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner(s) - State of Rajasthan. Also heard Mr. Adeel
Ahmed, Mr. Puneet Jain and Mr. Manish Verma, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents. Mr. Ajay Choudhary, learned
counsel appears for the applicant in application(s) for
impleadment.
2. IA Nos. 66651 of 2023, 96650 of 2023 and 100293 of 2023
(applications for impleadment) are allowed.
3. The counsel for the State of Rajasthan submits that since there
is shortage of Allopathic doctors serving under the Rajasthan
Government, a decision was taken to raise the retirement age of
Allopathic doctors from 60 years to 62 years. However, since
there were large number of Ayush doctors serving with the State
Government, similar raising of retirement age for Ayush doctors
was not considered necessary by the Government. Dr. Singhvi
would then argue that different retirement age for the Allopathic
doctors and the Ayush doctors would not attract the argument of
discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. The impugned judgment rendered by the High Court granting
parity relief to the Ayush doctors was based on the judgment of
3 WP-7882-2025
this Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram
Naresh Sharma & Ors. reported in (2021) 17 SCC 642. In this
case, the Court noted that the doctors, both under the Ayush and
Allopathic stream, render service to patients and on this core
aspect, there is nothing to distinguish one from the other.
5. The records would show that the above decision of this Court
was followed by the High Courts in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The like decision taken by the High
Court of Rajasthan favouring the Ayush doctors in raising their
retirement age to 62 years, is under challenge here.
6. It is relevant to note that this Court on 24.03.2022 has dismissed
the State's appeal in SLP (Civil) No. 33645 of 2018 arising out of
the judgment dated 03.04.2018 rendered by the High Court of
Uttarakhand in the WP No. 484 of 2014.
7. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel and the
reasoning given by this Court in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (supra)
are carefully considered. No infirmity is found with the impugned
judgment dated 13.07.2022 whereunder parity relief on retirement
age was granted to the Ayush doctors. The Special Leave Petitions
are accordingly dismissed.
4. In view of the order of Supreme Court dated 30/01/2024 and the
Coordinate Bench at Indore as noted above we hereby are of the view that
the applicant/petitioner and similarly situated Ayush Doctors shall continue
till the age of 65 years at par with the Allopathic Doctors, however, this
order shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition.
5 . We hereby make it clear that since the writ petitions are pending
those who are already retired, this order will not be applicable in those cases
and if those petitioners succeed in their petitions, they will get the benefits
accordingly.
List along with W.P. No.2154 of 2025.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
rj
