Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Govind Bhushan Sharma S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 April, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:16483-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16524/2022
Dr. Govind Bhushan Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o 49-A, New Krishna Nagar, Mathura (U.p.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ayurved
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Director, Ayurveda, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SL Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate
General assisted by
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
08/04/2024
1. In this petition, the issue arising for consideration is as to
whether providing the age of superannuation for Ayurvedic
Doctors vis-a-vis Allopathic Doctors is discriminatory and violative
of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset relied upon
the recent judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram
[2024:RJ-JP:16483-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-16524/2022]
Naresh Sharma & Ors. reported as 2021 SCC online SC 540,
and connected appeals to submit that in the aforesaid decision, it
has been held that in the matter of fixing age of superannuation,
no discriminatory treatment can be meted out as between the
Allopathic Doctors and Ayurvedic Doctors. It is submitted that the
Hon'ble 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.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
initially the orders passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh
Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., upon
being challenged, were kept in abeyance but later on the State's
SLP has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 30.01.2024
2.2 The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads 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
[2024:RJ-JP:16483-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-16524/2022]
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 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 as 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.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed."
3. Learned counsel for the State, however, would submit that
another order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Ors. 2023 SCC
Online SC 503 was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs.
Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma & Ors. (supra) and therefore, the
State is contemplating to file a review petition against the order
dated 30.01.2024 passed in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs.
[2024:RJ-JP:16483-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-16524/2022]
Mahesh Chand Sharma & Ors. (supra). He would further submit
that this aspect was taken into consideration in some of the
connected matters wherein, interim relief was not granted.
4. After taking into consideration the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, we are of the view that insofar as the
present petition is concerned, the petitioner herein is identically
situated as Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma and others in whose favour
earlier an order was passed by this Court and against which SLP
has now been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 30.01.2024.
5. May be that the State is contemplating to file review petition,
however, that could not be a ground for this Court not to pass
similar orders in the present case also because the petitioner in
this petition is identically situated as Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma
and others. Therefore, in that view of the matter, we are inclined
to allow this petition.
6. It has been brought to our notice that the age of
superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was enhanced from 60 to 62
years w.e.f. 31.03.2016.
7. The petitioner has retired upon attaining the age of 60 years
after 31.03.2016, however, he has not attained the age of 62
years. Therefore, in these circumstances, while the petitioner shall
be deemed to have continued in service, the respondents are
required to pass necessary orders in compliance of the order
passed by this Court.
8. Since the petitioner has superannuated, he shall be
reinstated in service forthwith to continue till attaining 62 years of
age.
[2024:RJ-JP:16483-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-16524/2022]
9. The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application, if
any, stands disposed of.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR-RAHUL/7
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
