[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dr. Bijendra Kumar Tyagi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 November, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:51733]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22582/2025

1.       Dr. Bijendra Kumar Tyagi S/o Shri Rahatash Singh, Aged
         About 60 Years, R/o Shiv Shakti Colony-Kojra, Tehsil
         Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
2.       Dr. Suhas Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Murari Lal Agarwal,
         Aged About 60 Years, R/o 116 NB Nagar, Dhauji Ki
         Bawadi, Bhoiyon Ki Pancholi, Girwa, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
         Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       The Principal Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda And
         Bhartiya Chikitsa, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
         Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.       The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda And
         Bhartiya Chikitsa, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
         Group-4, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
         Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5.       The Director, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Ashok Marg,
         Lohagal Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     None present
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sher Singh Rathore for
                                Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
                                Mr. R.S. Chauhan for
                                Mr. Deepak Bora, Govt. Counsel



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

28/11/2025

1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners as the

counsels are abstaining from work due to 'boycott day'.

2. Upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court noticed

that the relief sought in the present writ petition is similar to the

relief granted in the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by this Court

(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:22:36 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51733] (2 of 6) [CW-22582/2025]

in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.19705/2025 titled as Dr. Aqeel

Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

3. The order dated 30.10.2025 (supra) reads as follows:

"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks relief similar to the relief granted in D.B. Civil Writ Petition 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 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

(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:22:36 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51733] (3 of 6) [CW-22582/2025]

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 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

(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:22:36 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51733] (4 of 6) [CW-22582/2025]

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 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."

(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:22:36 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51733] (5 of 6) [CW-22582/2025]

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 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

(Uploaded on 28/11/2025 at 12:22:36 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51733] (6 of 6) [CW-22582/2025]

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.

4. Going by the aforesaid order and the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, liberty is given to the State and

respondent authorities either to continue or not to continue the

practitioners of the Indian System of Medicine even after the age

of superannuation specified for them, until the age of

superannuation provided for the individual assignment, without

the benefit of regular pay and allowances. If the State and the

respondent authorities decide to take the services of the

petitioners, they are entitled to avail themselves of pay and

allowances during the period they were continued, subject to the

result of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, if

they are not allowed to continue, they would still be entitled to