Rajasthan High Court
Dr. Govind Narayan Sharma S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 March, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3462/2024
Dr. Govind Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Ramniwas Sharma, Aged
About 61 Years, R/o Peer Ka Kua, Sambhar, Jaipur (Rural),
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
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
For Petitioner : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Rajendra Prasad
Advocate General.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
07/03/2024
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 of 5) [CW-3462/2024]
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
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 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.
4. 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
(3 of 5) [CW-3462/2024]
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.
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."
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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.
(4 of 5) [CW-3462/2024]
(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.
6. 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 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.
7. 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 order in the present case also because the petitioner is
identically situated as Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma and others.
Therefore, in that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow this
petition.
8. 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.
9. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner has
attained the age of superannuation. As the petitioner has attained
the age of superannuation, he shall be deemed to continue in
service.
10. The respondents are required to pass necessary order in
compliance of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner, who
(5 of 5) [CW-3462/2024]
has been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, but has
not completed the age of 62 years, be reinstated in service
forthwith.
11. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
Manoj Narwani/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
