Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dr. Shakeel Ahmad vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:49574) on 17 November, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:49574]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21301/2025

 Dr. Shakeel Ahmad S/o Abdul Hamid, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
 Alqresh City Medical Store, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                          Versus
 1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Ayurveda
         Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
 2.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Finance,
         Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
 3.      State       Of     Rajasthan,          Through         Principal     Secretary
         Department           Of     Personnel,         Government          Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
 4.      Director Ayurveda, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Ajmer.
 5.      The     Director,         Pension      Department,           Government     Of
         Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. MA Siddiqui
                                     Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Deepak Bora



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

17/11/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

seeks relief similar to the relief granted in D.B. Civil Writ

Petitioner No.13496/2021 titled as 'Dr. Mahesh Chandra

Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.' giving the

benefit of relaxing the age of superannuation vis-a-vis MBBS

doctors.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the

(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:46:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49574] (2 of 5) [CW-21301/2025]

similar issue in Special Leave Petition (C) No.9563/2024

titled as 'State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Anisur Rahman' and

batch of petitions by giving modified directions. He further submits

that in the present case, petitioner is already superannuated even

if, the age of superannuation is extended to the petitioner; his

claim is only to avail the pay benefits, allowances and revision of

pension, in the event he succeeds, basing on the decision of

Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

3. In the background of the above contentions and the decision

referred of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. (supra) case,

wherein the operative portion of said case reads as follows:

"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 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

(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:46:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49574] (3 of 5) [CW-21301/2025]

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 being consistent 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 24.11.2017must be retrospectively applied from31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent doctors, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion."

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

(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:46:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49574] (4 of 5) [CW-21301/2025]

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.

While some of the petitioners are still working, some of the petitioners have 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. All those petitioners, who have so retired after 31.03.2016, shall be deemed to have continued in service upto 62 years. This will require the respondents authority to pass necessary orders treating them in service till attaining the age of 62 years in individual cases with consequential benefits of continuity of service. All other consequential action would also be required to be taken which include refixation of pension and other benefits. Those, who have been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, but have not completed 62 years of age, be reinstated in service forth with.

The petitions are accordingly allowed."

4. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Anisur

Rahman wherein the operative portion of the said case reads as

follows:

"10. In the meanwhile, the States and the authorities would be entitled to either continue the practitioners of indigenous systems of medicine, even after the age of superannuation specified for them till the age of superannuation provided for MBBS doctors, without the benefit of regular pay and allowances. Eventually, if the larger Bench holds in favour of the AYUSH doctors, entitling them for enhancement in retirement age, the practitioners would be entitled to avail pay and allowances during the period they were continued. However, if they

(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 02:46:37 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49574] (5 of 5) [CW-21301/2025]

are not allowed to continue by virtue of this order, still they would be entitled to avail the pay and allowances for the enhanced period, if the issue is held in their favour. If the State Government permits such continuance and the individual doctors do not take up such assignment without regular pay and allowances, they would be treated as retired and the fate of this reference will be inconsequential to them.

11. Considering the fact that if the AYUSH doctors are continued, they will not be entitled to pension also, it is directed that they shall be paid half of the pay and allowances, which, if the reference does not yield any favourable orders will be adjusted in their pension or otherwise against the regular pay and allowances."

5. Going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

petitioner is entitled only to pay revision including allowance as

well as pensionary revision, as he has already superannuated,

even if the age of superannuation is extended in terms of the Dr.

Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. (supra) case. Such entitlement

depends upon the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court by the Larger Bench.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed

of, while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew his request

depending upon the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in terms of the decision in State of Rajasthan &

Ors. vs. Anisur Rahman.