Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Ravishankar Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11820/2022
Dr. Ravishankar Sharma Son Of Shri Ramkishor Sharma, Aged
About 61 Years, Resident Of A-23, Behind Dashahara Kothi, East
Govind Nagar, Amer Road Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division),
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa
Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag,
Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, Additional Advocate
General
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
17/08/2022
Heard.
Following reliefs have been sought:-
"(I) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction,
the impugned notification dated 31.03.2016 by which
the benefit of the enhancement of age of superannuation
has been extended only to the Doctors of Medical and
Health Service and not to the Doctors of Ayurved and
(2 of 5) [CW-11820/2022]
Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag of Government of Rajasthan, be
declared as ULTRA-VIRES and the same may kindly be
strike down to the extent it deprives the Doctors of
Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy And
Naturopathy Service from getting the benefit of
enhanced age of retirement up to 62 years and further it
may be held that the petitioner who is Doctors of
Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and
Naturopathy Service is also entitled to continue in
employment till attaining the age of 62 years, with all
consequential benefits.
(II) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction,
the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner as
he has not completed age of 62 years and allow him to
continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years with
all consequential benefits.
(III) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case,
may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
(IV) Cost of the writ petition may also kingly be awarded
in favour of the petitioners."
This Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma &
Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.13496/2021 and batch of petitions) has dealt
with the issue as to whether providing different age of
superannuation for Allopathic Doctors vis-a-vis Ayurvedic doctors
is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram
Naresh Sharma & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 540
and other judicial pronouncements, it has been held as below:-
"It is not necessary for us to dwelve deep in the
matter because this issue is no longer res integra and
stands concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs.
Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors (supra) and batch of cases
where this issue was examined. While enhancing the age
(3 of 5) [CW-11820/2022]
of retirement of Allopathic Doctors from 60 to 62 years,
this enhancement had not taken place in respect of the
class of Ayurvedic Doctors which resulted in filing of
petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held the
classification unreasonable and the petitions were
allowed. The matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by the employer namely North Delhi Municipal
Corporation. Their Lordships in the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as below:-
"22. The common contention of the appellants
before us is that classification of AYUSH doctors
and doctors under CHS in different categories is
reasonable and permissible in law. This however
does not appeal to us and we are inclined to agree
with the findings of the Tribunal and the Delhi High
Court that the classification is discriminatory and
unreasonable since doctors under both segments
are performing the same function of treating and
healing their patients. 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 order of AYUSH Ministry dated
24.11.2017 extending the age of superannuation to
65 Years also endorses such a view. This extension
is in tune with the notification of Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare dated 31.05.2016.
23. 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.
14019/4/2016EI (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."
(4 of 5) [CW-11820/2022]
The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court leaves no scope for arguments
on the part of the 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.
It is brought to our notice and also placed on
record that the age of superannuation of Allopathic
Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62 years w.e.f.
31.03.2016."
The submission of Learned Additional Advocate General that
the relief could not been granted as judgment of the Supreme
Court applied prospectively, has already been dealt by us in the
case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. (supra).
We place on record the fact regarding petitioner having
already retired after attaining the age of 60 years after the
issuance of notification enhancing age of retirement from 60 to 62
years in respect of Allopathic Doctors. As the petitioner has retired
after 31.03.2016, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief
which has been granted by us in the aforesaid case. As the
petitioner has not completed 62 years of age, he shall be
reinstated forthwith and continue in service upto 62 years. This
will require the respondent-authority to pass necessary orders
treating the petitioner to be in service till attaining the age of 62
years with 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
(5 of 5) [CW-11820/2022]
to the pensionary benefits which the petitioner has already
availed. Consequential orders in this regard shall also be required
to be passed by the respondents.
The petition is accordingly allowed.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
Karan/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
