Rajasthan High Court

Dr. Abha Mittal D/O Late Shri Suresh ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 April, 2024

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal

[2024:RJ-JP:16859-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2674/2024

Dr. Renu Bansal Daughter Of Shri Kishan Prasad Gupta, Aged
About 60 Years, Resident Of 002 Virasat Four Point 92/4 Sri-
Vihar Mahaveer Nagar-I, Tonk Road Jaipur, Rajasthan
                                                                        ----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, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa
         Vibhag,        Government            Of      Rajasthan,         Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag,
         Government           Of     Rajasthan,       Government            Secretariat,
         Jaipur
4.       Director, Homeopathic Chikitsa Vibhag, Ayush Bhavan,
         Sector-26, N.r.i. Circle, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Respondents

Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12946/2022 Dr. Abha Mittal D/o Late Shri Suresh Mittal, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of 87/24, Near St. Francis Hospital, Beawar Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal 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, Homeopathic Chikitsa Vibhag, Ayush Bhavan,

[2024:RJ-JP:16859-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-2674/2024]

Sector-26, N.r.i. Circle, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13431/2022

1. Dr. Antoo Saxena D/o Shri S. P. Saxena, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of B-803, Mewar Apartment, Haldighati Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.

2. Dr. Sumitra Verma, D/o Shri L. L. Verma, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of 23/89, Swarn Path, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

3. Dr. Rahul Pandit Son Of Shri Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of B-1/15, Gandhi Path, Chitrakut, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

4. Dr. Haroon Rasheed Son Of Shri Dr. Noor Mohammad, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of 101, B-3, Vaishali Apartments, Hiranmagri, Sector - 4, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Dr. Alok Kumar Verma Son Of Shri Laxman Singh Verma, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of 39, Hanuman Nagar, Bihariganj, Ajmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal 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, Homeopathic Chikitsa Vibhag, Ayush Bhavan, Sector-26, N.r.i. Circle, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13486/2022 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra Son Of Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of 353-C, Katewa Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

[2024:RJ-JP:16859-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-2674/2024]

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal 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. Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

5. Director, Homeopathic Chikitsa Vibhag, Ayush Bhavan, Sector-26, N.r.i. Circle, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitish Kumar Garg with Mr. Shyamsunder Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

08/04/2024

1. In this batch of petitions, the issue arising for consideration

is as to whether providing the age of superannuation for

Homeopathic Doctors vis-a-vis Allopathic Doctors is discriminatory

and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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:16859-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-2674/2024]

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.

3. Learned Advocate General, 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. Dr.

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. Learned Advocate General would also submit that the parity

which has been drawn as between Ayurvedic Doctors and

Allopathic Doctors would not be applicable in case of Homeopathic

Doctors because they stand at different footings. He would submit

that the considerations which prevailed for enhancing the age of

retirement of Allopathic Doctors from 60 to 62 are not available

insofar as the present working strength and vacancy position of

Homeopathic Doctors is concerned. He would also submit that the

[2024:RJ-JP:16859-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-2674/2024]

State has already filed a review petition in the case of State of

Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma and

Ors. Therefore, the order which are being passed by this Court in

respect of Ayurvedic Doctors may not apply in the case of

Homeopathic Doctors.

5. We find that the SLP filed by the State in the case of Dr.

Mahesh Chandra Sharma (supra) has been dismissed vide

detailed order dated 30.01.2024. The said order reads as below :-

"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 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

[2024:RJ-JP:16859-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-2674/2024]

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.