Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Dinesh Chand Sharma Son Of Shri Hari ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 February, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:10093-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2949/2024
1. Dr. Mahendra Singh Jakhar Son Of Shri Sanwat Singh,
Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village - Khemchand Ki
Dhani, Post-Dhamora, Tehsil-Udaipurwati, District-
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan
2. Dr. Upadhyay Bhaskar S/o Shri Maniram Ji, Aged About
60 Years, R/o 41-A, Sarita Vihar, Rampura Road,
Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Jagdish Singh Rajput S/o Chatur Singh, Aged About
60 Years, R/o House No. - 11, Hardev Vihar Colony,
Infront Of Jai Paltan, Alwar, Rajasthan
4. Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Chand
Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, R/o O-56, Govind Nagar
Housing Board, Kankroli, District-Rajsamand, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division),
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. 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, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag,
Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer
----Respondents
Connected with
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3042/2024
Dr. Dinesh Chand Sharma Son Of Shri Hari Shankar Sharma,
Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 21, Behind Bijali
Ghar, Kheril, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
[2024:RJ-JP:10093-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-2949/2024]
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. The Deputy Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa
Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag,
Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer
----Respondents
Connected with
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2279/2024
1. Dr. Pyare Lal Meena Son Of Shri Kanahaiya Lal Meena,
Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of House No.7,
Brahmpuri Colony, Opposite G.p.o, Sawai Madhopur
Road, Tonk, Rajasthan
2. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Mahavar S/o Shri Prahalad Mahavar,
Aged About 60 Years, R/o Plot No.85, Arihant Vatika,
Dhabas, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. Dr. Jairaj Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 60
Years, R/o 2/9, Rajat Vihar Colony, Pali, Rajasthan
4. Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta S/o Shri Babulal Gupta, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o Mukam Post- Dhamotar, Tehsil -
Pratapgarh, District - Pratapgarh, Rajasthan
5. Dr. Mahendra Kumar Trivedi S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra
Trivedi, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Mukam Post -
Chhinch, District - Banswara, Rajasthan
6. Dr. Subhash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Radheshyam
Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o B - 482, R. K.
Puram, Kota, Rajasthan
7. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Ram Padarath
Pandey, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Tilak Nagar, Rani
[2024:RJ-JP:10093-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-2949/2024]
Sati Road, Opposite Bioscope Cinema Hall, Sikar,
Rajasthan
8. Dr. Gobri Lal Malav S/o Jagana Malav, Aged About 60
Years, R/o Plot No.32, Maruti Colony, Devpura, District
- Bundi, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Finance (Rules Division),
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. 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, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag,
Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/2024
Anisur Rahman S/o Shri Abdul Hafeez, Aged About 60 Years,
Resident Of 465, Pragati Nagar, Kotra, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Unani
Department (Ayush), Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Director Of Unani Medicine Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur Through Its Director Having Its
Office At Ayush Bhawan, Sector-26, Pratap Nagar,
Jaipur - 302033
----Respondents
[2024:RJ-JP:10093-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-2949/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg
Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with
Mr. Manish Parihar
Mr. Brijesh Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG assisted by
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma &
Ms. Harshita Thakral
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
28/02/2024
1. In this batch of petitions, the issue arising for consideration
is as to whether providing the age of superannuation for Ayurvedic
Doctors vis-a-vis Allopathic Doctors is discriminatory to Article 14
of 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
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.
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
[2024:RJ-JP:10093-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-2949/2024]
SLP has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 30.01.2024
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
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:10093-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-2949/2024]
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 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.
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 petitions are concerned, the petitioners herein are
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 cases also because the petitioners in
this batch of petitions are identically situated as Dr. Mahesh Chand
[2024:RJ-JP:10093-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-2949/2024]
Sharma and others. Therefore, in that view of the matter, we are
inclined to allow all these petitions.
5. It has been brought to our notice and also placed on record
that the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors was
enhanced from 60 to 62 years with effect from 31.03.2016.
6. While the petitioners in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.
2949/2024, 3042/2024 & 2279/2024 are continuing in service,
petitioner in connected D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/2024 has
attained the age of superannuation. As the retirement of petitioner
in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/2024 has taken place after
31.03.2016, he shall be deemed to continue in service upto the
age of 62 years. The petitioners in other writ petitions shall also
continue in service upto 62 years.
7. The respondents are required to pass necessary orders in
compliance of the order passed by this Court. Those who have
been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, but have
not completed the age of 62 years, be reinstated in service
forthwith.
8. All the petitions are accordingly allowed. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
9. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
Kamlesh Kumar-RAHUL/31,52,94 & 95
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
