Dismissed

Dr. Shabnam Bhandari Grover v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/7208/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of writ petitions by CHS doctors challenged a CAT order upholding the 2018 amendment to Rule 56(bb) FR, fixing superannuation at 62 with conditional, non-administrative continuation to 65. The Delhi High Court upheld the rule's validity, finding no vested right, no reduction in rank, no arbitrariness or Article 14/16 violation, and dismissed the petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Shabnam Bhandari Grover Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment reserved on: 03.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 10.02.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 10.02.2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & CM APPL. 8825/2020 DR. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat SC GNCTD Services with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

¶7

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari Senior Panel Counsel for R1

¶8

- W.P.(C) 2525/2020 & CM APPL. 8840/2020 DELHI ADMINISTRATION DOCTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv.

¶9

versus

¶10

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat SC GNCTD Services with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. Mr. Sahil Munjal SPC with Ms. Rhea Gandhi Adv. for Union of India

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶13

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 1 of 31

¶14

- W.P.(C) 2532/2020 & CM. APPL. 8855/2020 DR. LAXMI NARAIN GUPTA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through:

¶15

versus

¶16

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, senior Panel Counsel for R1

¶17

- W.P.(C) 2533/2020 JOINT ACTION COUNCIL OF SERVICE DOCTORS ORGANISATION AND ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv.

¶18

versus

¶19

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, senior Panel Counsel for R1

¶20

- W.P.(C) 7208/2020 & CM APPL. 24368/2020 DR. SHABNAM BHANDARI GROVER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv.

¶21

versus

¶22

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, SPS along with Ms Preeti and Mr. Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Advs. Mr. Nirvikar Verma, senior Panel Counsel for R1

¶23

CORAM:

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

¶27

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶30

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 2 of 31

¶31

batch of five Writ Petitions, all arising out of a common factual background and assailing the same order dated 14.08.2019 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟], are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶32

The principal question that arises for consideration in the present batch of matters is whether the amendment to Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, effected vide Notification dated 11.08.2018, insofar as it stipulates that doctors of the Central Health Service and other allied services may continue in service up to the age of 65 years only on non-administrative assignments, is arbitrary, unconstitutional, or otherwise unsustainable in law; and whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Original Applications filed by the Petitioners and upholding the validity of the aforesaid amendment.

¶33

FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶34

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present batch of Writ Petitions, it is necessary to notice the relevant and largely undisputed factual background, which constitutes the common substratum of all the Petitions.

¶35

The Petitioners are doctors belonging to the Central Health Service [„CHS‟] and allied medical services under the Union of India. Some of the Petitioners are individual medical officers, whereas others are associations representing such doctors. It is not in dispute that the controversy in all the Writ Petitions centres around the age of

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶38

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 3 of 31

¶39

superannuation and the conditions governing continuation in service beyond the age of 62 years.

¶40

Prior to the year 2016, the age of superannuation of doctors under the Central Government was either 60 or 62 years, depending upon the nature of duties and the posts held by them. With a view to utilise the services of experienced medical professionals in the fields of teaching and patient care, the Government of India, in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules vide Notification dated 31.05.2016, thereby enhancing the age of superannuation of doctors belonging to the specified services up to 65 years.

¶41

With a view to operationalise the enhancement of the age of superannuation and to address issues that arose in its implementation, the Government thereafter issued a further notification dated 22.03.2017, wherein it was mentioned that the Doctors shall not hold administrative positions after 62 years of age. The said notification gave rise to a spate of litigation before the Tribunal by doctors who were, at the relevant time, holding administrative positions and were aggrieved by the prospect of being divested of such responsibilities upon attaining the age of 62 years.

¶42

The record reflects that in one such proceeding, namely Dr. Jagdish Prasad v. Union of India¹ , the Tribunal, after undertaking extensive discussion on the scope of the rule-making power of the Government and the principles governing judicial review of service conditions, declined to interfere with the amendment. However, an

¶43

1 O.A. No. 494/2017

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶46

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 4 of 31

¶47

observation was made therein to the effect that an officer could not be deprived of an administrative post held by him unless an equivalent post of the same rank was created. It is not in dispute that the said observation was stayed by this Court in proceedings arising therefrom.

¶48

In order to bring finality to the recurring disputes concerning continuation in service beyond the age of 62 years and the nature of duties to be discharged during such extended tenure, the Government issued the Notification dated 11.08.2018, whereby Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules was substituted. Under the said amendment, the age of superannuation of doctors belonging to the Central Health Service and other specified medical services was stipulated as 62 years, with an option to continue in service up to the age of 65 years, subject to the condition that such continuation would be confined to teaching, clinical, patient care, implementation of health programmes, public health functions, and advisory or consultancy roles, as determined by the competent authority. The amended provision expressly excluded continuation on administrative posts beyond the age of 62 years.

¶49

The amendment further provided a limited window to serving doctors who had either already attained the age of 62 years or were to attain the said age within six months from the date of publication of the amendment, to exercise an option for continuation in service beyond that age. Failure to exercise such option within the prescribed period was stipulated to result in superannuation upon attaining the age of 62 years.

¶50

Pursuant to the aforesaid amendment, the Ministry of Health

¶51

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶52

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 5 of 31

¶53

and Family Welfare also prescribed a formal option format, wherein the concerned doctors were required to indicate their willingness to continue in service up to the age of 65 years and acknowledge that such continuation would be subject to posting on non-administrative assignments, depending upon availability of vacancies and administrative exigencies, as decided by the competent authority.

¶54

Aggrieved by the conditions attached to the continuation of service beyond the age of 62 years, several doctors belonging to the CHS and allied services approached the Tribunal by filing a batch of Original Applications, including O.A. No. 3746/2018 and other connected matters. The principal grievance raised therein was that the impugned amendment arbitrarily deprived them of administrative responsibilities, adversely affected their status and career progression, and resulted in juniors being placed in positions of authority over seniors who had opted to continue in service.

¶55

It was, inter alia , contended before the Tribunal that the amendment of 2018 had the effect of divesting doctors, who were otherwise entitled to continue till the age of 65 years, of their administrative positions upon attaining the age of 62 years; that such divestment amounted to reduction in rank; that the right to be considered for promotion was adversely affected; and that the condition of exercising an option for continuation was arbitrary and coercive.

¶56

The respondents, on the other hand, opposed the Original Applications by contending that the very object of enhancing the age of superannuation was to utilise the expertise of senior doctors in the

¶57

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶58

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 6 of 31

¶59

fields of teaching and patient care, and that permitting continuation on administrative posts beyond the age of 62 years would lead to stagnation in the lower echelons of the service. It was further submitted that continuation in service beyond the age of 62 years was not a matter of right but was expressly made optional under the amended Rule 56(bb), subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The respondents also asserted that Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules has been framed in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and that the rule-making authority is competent to amend the same in public interest. It was thus contended that no Government servant has a vested right to insist upon continuation in a particular assignment or administrative position beyond the age of superannuation prescribed by the governing rule.

¶60

After considering the rival submissions, the Tribunal, by way of Impugned Order, dismissed the batch of Original Applications holding that the age of superannuation remained 62 years; that continuation beyond that age was optional; and that the amendment did not warrant interference.

¶61

Aggrieved thereby, the present batch of Writ Petitions came to be filed.

¶62

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

¶63

16. Contentions of the Petitioners:

¶64

16.1 Learned counsel for the Petitioners assailed the Impugned Order primarily on the ground that the amendment carried out to Fundamental Rule 56(bb) vide Notification dated 31.05.2016 was

¶65

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶66

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 7 of 31

¶67

clear, unconditional and unequivocal in its intent and effect. It was contended that by virtue of the said Notification, the age of superannuation in respect of all sub-cadres of the CHS stood enhanced to 65 years, without any stipulation, restriction or qualification. According to the Petitioners, the amendment brought parity among the four sub-cadres of CHS, whose members were earlier retiring at different ages, namely 60, 62 and 65 years in the case of General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs), Non-teaching/Public Health Specialists and Teaching Specialists respectively. The Notification dated 31.05.2016, it was submitted, neither required the doctors to exercise any option for continuation beyond 62 years nor imposed any condition disentitling them from holding administrative posts upon attaining that age.

¶68

16.2 It was further contended that the subsequent Notification dated 11.08.2018, read with Notification dated 05.01.2018 and Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2018, had been erroneously interpreted by the Tribunal. According to the Petitioners, the Notification dated 11.08.2018 does not expressly exclude doctors from performing administrative duties or from holding administrative posts after the age of 62 years. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that doctors beyond the age of 62 years would be utilized only in the fields of teaching, clinical patient care and implementation of health programmes and public health, and not on the administrative side, is stated to be unsustainable as such exclusion is not borne out from the language of the Notification itself.

¶69

16.3 It was next submitted that the requirement of furnishing an

¶70

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶71

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 8 of 31

¶72

“option” under the Notification dated 11.08.2018 is illusory and not a genuine choice. It was argued that the said requirement effectively compels doctors, upon attaining the age of 62 years, either to forgo continuation in service or to relinquish their existing administrative positions and work under officers junior to them. Such a consequence, it was urged, results in a clear alteration of service conditions to their detriment and is contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence. It is their case that the Union Cabinet, while enhancing the age of superannuation to 65 years, never intended to divest doctors of the status, powers and privileges attached to their posts.

¶73

16.4 It was further contended that the form prescribed pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2018 travels beyond the parent Notifications. It was submitted that in the option form, it has been stipulated that doctors would be considered for posts other than administrative posts, a condition which, according to the Petitioners, finds no mention either in the Notification dated 11.08.2018 or in the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2018. It was argued that a form or executive instruction cannot override, supplement or supplant the main statutory notification or rule. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tulsyan NEC Ltd .² , and St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE³ .

¶74

16.5 The Petitioners also assailed the impugned Notifications on the ground of lack of authority, contending that the amendments introducing the impugned proviso to FR 56(bb) vide Notifications

¶75

2 (2011) 2 SCC 1

¶76

3 (2003) 3 SCC 321

¶77

Signature Not Verified

¶78

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 9 of 31 12:22:34

¶79

dated 11.08.2018 and 05.01.2018 were carried out without approval of the Cabinet and thus amount to transgression of delegated legislative power. It was submitted that subordinate legislation must operate strictly within the bounds of the enabling provision and cannot override or dilute the substantive decision of the Cabinet enhancing the age of superannuation.

¶80

16.6 It was further contended that the impugned action results in hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the Petitioners, similarly situated doctors serving in the Assam Rifles, Central Armed Police Forces, PGI Chandigarh, AIIMS New Delhi and other AIIMS institutions are permitted to continue up to the age of 65 years without restriction and are not precluded from holding administrative posts. It was also urged that certain doctors within CHS have allegedly been allowed to continue in administrative positions even after attaining the age of 62 years. Such differential treatment, it was submitted, creates a class within a class and is constitutionally impermissible.

¶81

16.7 Additionally, it was contended that the impugned action adversely affects their right to be considered for promotion. It was submitted that while preparing the common seniority list of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) doctors released vide Office Memorandum dated 29.06.2019 for the purpose of promotion to Higher Administrative Grade (HAG), the names of doctors who had attained the age of 62 years were excluded despite their continued service up to 65 years. Consequently, juniors were considered and promoted, thereby ignoring seniors solely on the ground of age.

¶82

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶83

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 10 of 31

¶84

Reliance in this regard is placed upon State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh⁴ .

¶85

16.8 It is the specific case of the Petitioners that enhancement of the age of superannuation to 65 years under FR 56(bb), with effect from 31.05.2016, created a vested right to continue in service up to that age, along with the status, powers and privileges attached to the post. The subsequent Notifications dated 05.01.2018 and 11.08.2018, as well as the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2018, are alleged to have curtailed this vested right and are therefore arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

¶86

16.9 Lastly, reliance was placed upon Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India⁵ ; and Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association v. State of Telangana⁶ , to contend that this Court is empowered to judicially review arbitrary policy decisions lacking reasonable nexus.

¶87

Contentions of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 [Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DoPT)]:

¶88

17.1 Per contra , learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, at the outset, submitted that the present Writ Petitions have been rendered infructuous. It was contended that all the Petitioners have already retired from service upon attaining the age of 62 years and, therefore, no effective writ could now be issued granting the reliefs as prayed for.

¶89

4 (1970) 1 SCC 108

¶90

5 (2003) 4 SCC 289

¶91

6 (2019) 7 SCC 172

¶92

Signature Not Verified

¶93

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 11 of 31 12:22:34

¶94

17.2 It was submitted that the CHS is a statutory service governed by the Central Health Service Rules, 2014 as amended by the Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 2019, and comprises four subcadres, namely, Teaching, Non-Teaching, Public Health and General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO). Prior to 31.05.2016, the age of superannuation for persons holding posts in various sub-cadres of CHS was 62 years, except for the GDMO sub-cadre where it was 60 years. Specialists included in the Teaching sub-cadre who were engaged in teaching activities and not occupying administrative positions were permitted to continue up to 65 years of age. Specialists of the Teaching sub-cadre who were occupying administrative positions had the option to hold teaching positions, in case they desired to continue up to the age of 65 years.

¶95

17.3 It was submitted that with a view to utilize the experience of doctors belonging to various sub-cadres of CHS in the fields of teaching, patient care and public health, a proposal was mooted by the Department of Health and Family Welfare on 31.05.2016 to enhance the age of superannuation of Non-Teaching Specialists, Public Health Specialists and GDMOs to 65 years with effect from 31.05.2016. Simultaneously, it was proposed that the Department of Health and Family Welfare be empowered to take an appropriate decision in respect of the age for holding charge of administrative positions as per functional requirements. The proposal was approved by the competent authority on 31.05.2016 and was thereafter ratified by the Union Cabinet on 15.06.2016.

¶96

17.4 Pursuant to the said approval, clause (bb) was inserted in FR 56

¶97

Signature Not Verified

¶98

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶99

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 12 of 31

¶100

vide Notification dated 31.05.2016 enhancing the age of superannuation in respect of GDMOs and Specialists included in the Teaching, Non-Teaching and Public Health sub-cadres of CHS to 65 years. It was emphasized that the Cabinet had specifically empowered the Ministry to take an appropriate decision with respect to the age for holding administrative charge.

¶101

17.5 In exercise of the aforesaid authority, the Department of Health and Family Welfare issued an Office Memorandum dated 19.07.2016 taking a policy decision that officers of various sub-cadres of CHS should not hold administrative posts after attaining the age of 62 years. Subsequently, to give statutory effect to the said policy decision, the Fundamental (First/Second) Amendment Rules were notified vide Notification dated 22.03.2017, thereby providing statutory flavour to the decision that officers of the various sub-cadres of CHS should not hold administrative posts after attaining the age of 62 years.

¶102

17.6 It is further submitted that the aforesaid Notification dated 22.03.2017 was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 494/2017 captioned Dr. Jagdish Prasad ( supra ). The Tribunal granted certain relief to the applicant therein by judgment dated 05.04.2018. The said decision was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4727/2018 captioned Union of India v. Dr. Jagdish Prasad , wherein this Court, by order dated 30.07.2018, stayed the operation of the Tribunal‟s judgment. It is stated that the said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 08.01.2020 without granting any relief to Dr. Jagdish Prasad.

¶103

Signature Not Verified

¶104

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶105

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 13 of 31

¶106

17.7 It was submitted that thereafter FR 56(bb) was further amended vide Notification dated 11.08.2018. By virtue of the said amendment, the age of superannuation in respect of doctors belonging to CHS was stipulated as 62 years, unless they exercised an option in the prescribed format for posting to Teaching, Clinical, Patient Care, Implementation of Health Programmes, Public Health Programmes and functions including advisory and consultancy, depending upon their expertise and experience. The amendment further provided that doctors who had attained or were to attain the age of 62 years and failed to exercise such option would superannuate upon attaining the age of 62 years. It was submitted that, as per the records, almost all doctors exercised the option to continue beyond the age of 62 years on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Notification dated 11.08.2018.

¶107

17.8 It was contended that the Petitioners have no vested right to continue in service beyond the age of 62 years. It was submitted that the right to continue up to 65 years was made available only by virtue of the Notification dated 31.05.2016 and is subject to the conditions attached thereto and to subsequent amendments. Such a right, it was urged, cannot be treated as an indefeasible or vested right and can be amended or modified in accordance with law. The Petitioners, it was contended, cannot claim the benefit of extended tenure without complying with the attendant conditions.

¶108

17.9 It was further submitted that the policy underlying the impugned amendment is rational and seeks to utilize the experience of senior doctors in the areas of teaching, clinical work, patient care and

¶109

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶110

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 14 of 31

¶111

public health, rather than in administrative assignments. The amendment being founded on a policy decision, its wisdom cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or violative of constitutional or statutory provisions.

¶112

Contentions of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 [Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi]:

¶113

18.1 Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 broadly adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the Union of India. It was reiterated that CHS is a statutory service comprising four sub-cadres and that prior to 31.05.2016, the age of superannuation was 62 years (60 years in the case of GDMOs), except for teaching specialists not holding administrative posts who could continue up to 65 years.

¶114

18.2 It was submitted that the decision that officers of various subcadres of CHS should not hold administrative posts after attaining the age of 62 years was taken as a matter of policy pursuant to Cabinet approval empowering the Ministry to decide the age for holding administrative charge as per functional requirements. The subsequent amendments to FR 56(bb) merely gave statutory effect to such policy decision.

¶115

18.3 It was asserted that neither the right to continue beyond 62 years nor the right to hold an administrative position beyond that age is a vested right or a condition of service that cannot be altered. The enhancement of age up to 65 years is itself subject to conditions and the Petitioners cannot insist upon continuation in administrative posts as a matter of right.

¶116

Signature Not Verified

¶117

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶118

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 15 of 31

¶119

18.4. In support of the limited scope of judicial review in matters of policy, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain⁷ ; Union of India v. M. Selvakumar⁸ ; Rachna v. Union of India⁹ ; and NOIDA v. B.D. Singhal¹⁰ . It was submitted that the enhancement of age of superannuation and the conditions subject to which such enhancement is granted fall squarely within the realm of policy, and this Court ought not to trench upon the domain of the executive unless the policy is shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional.

¶120

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

¶121

The following questions arise for consideration in the present batch of Writ Petitions:

¶122

I. Whether, after the substitution of Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules vide Notification dated 11.08.2018, the age of superannuation of doctors belonging to the CHS and other specified services is 62 years, with an enabling provision for continuation up to 65 years subject to conditions, or whether 65 years constitutes the unconditional age of superannuation;

¶123

II. Whether the stipulation that continuation in service beyond the age of 62 years shall be confined to teaching, clinical, patient care, implementation of health programmes, public health functions and advisory or consultancy roles amounts to divestment of rank or reduction in status;

¶124

7 (2007) 4 SCC 737

¶125

8 (2017) 3 SCC 504

¶126

9 (2021) 5 SCC 638

¶127

10 Civil Appeal No. 2310 of 2021, decided on 15.07.2021

¶128

Signature Not Verified

¶129

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 16 of 31 12:22:34

¶130

III. Whether the Petitioners possess a vested or indefeasible right to continue in service up to the age of 65 years along with the right to hold administrative posts;

¶131

IV. Whether the Notifications dated 05.01.2018 and 11.08.2018, and the consequential Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2018 prescribing an option format, suffer from lack of authority or travel beyond the scope of the enabling provision;

¶132

V. Whether the impugned amendment results in hostile discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and

¶133

VI. Whether the exclusion of doctors who have attained the age of 62 years from consideration for further promotion to higher administrative grades is legally sustainable.

¶134

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:

¶135

This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record. The aforesaid questions are interrelated and arise out of the same statutory framework. They are, therefore, being examined together in the following analysis.

¶136

20A. Though learned counsel for the Union of India contended that the Petitions have been rendered infructuous as the Petitioners have already superannuated, this objection cannot be accepted. The Petitioners have challenged the validity and interpretation of a statutory rule and seek consequential benefits. The issue raised is not

¶137

Signature Not Verified

¶138

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶139

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 17 of 31

¶140

rendered academic merely because Petitioners have retired, particularly when service benefits and promotional consequences are asserted.

¶141

I. Nature and Effect of the Amendment to Rule 56(bb):

¶142

The foundational issue that falls for determination is the true import of Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules as substituted by Notification dated 11.08.2018. The Petitioners‟ challenge proceeds on the premise that the earlier Notification dated 31.05.2016 enhanced the age of superannuation of doctors belonging to the Central Health Service to 65 years without qualification, and that any subsequent restriction disentitling them from holding administrative posts beyond the age of 62 years amounts to curtailment of that right.

¶143

At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the Amendment introduced vide Notification dated 11.08.2018, which reads as under:

¶144

2. “……………..In the Fundamental Rules, 1922, in rule 56, for clause (bb). the following shall be substituted, namely:-

¶145

"(bb) (i) The age of superannuation in respect of the doctors belonging to-

¶146

(i) Central Health Service;

¶147

(ii) Indian Railways Medical Service;

¶148

(iii) AYUSH and working under the Ministry of AYUSH;

¶149

(iv) Civilian doctors under the Directorate General of Armed Forces Medical Service;

¶150

(v) Medical Officers of the Indian Ordnance Factories Health Service;

¶151

(vi) Dental Doctors under the Department of Health and Family Welfare;

¶152

Signature Not Verified

¶153

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶154

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 18 of 31

¶155

(vii)

¶156

Dental doctors under the Ministry of Railways; and

¶157

(viii) General Duty Medical Officers, Specialist Grade doctors and Teaching Medical Faculty working in Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre,

¶158

shall be sixty-two years unless they exercise the option of posting to Teaching, Clinical, Patient Care, Implementation of Health programmes; Public Health programmes and functions including advisory and consultancy depending on their expertise and experience, as decided by the competent authority in the concerned Ministry or Department from time to time, in case they desire to continue in their service upto the age of sixty-five years:

¶159

Provided that the age of superannuation in respect of the doctors belonging to the General Duty Medical Officers sub-cadre of Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles and Specialist Medical officers of Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles shall be sixty-five years.

¶160

(ii) The serving doctors belonging to the services referred to in subclause (i) who have either already attained the age of sixty-two years or attaining the age of sixty-two years within six months from the date of publication of these amendment rules in the Official Gazette, may exercise their option in regard to their posting to Teaching, Clinical, Patient Care, Implementation of Health programmes, Public Health programmes and functions including advisory and consultancy as specified in sub-clause (i), within a period of thirty days from the date of the commencement of the Fundamental (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018.

¶161

(iii) The serving doctors who fail to exercise the option in regard to their posting to Teaching, Clinical Patient Care, Implementation of Health programmes, Public Health programmes and functions including advisory and consultancy as specified in sub-clause i), within the period specified in sub-clause (ii), shall be superannuated from their service on attaining the age of sixty-two years or on expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of the commencement of the Fundamental (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018, whichever is later.

¶162

……….”

¶163

The structure of the amended rule is clear. Superannuation at the age of 62 years is the norm. Continuation beyond that age is not automatic or unconditional; it is contingent upon (i) the exercise of an option within the prescribed time, and (ii) acceptance of posting in the functional domains specified in the rule. The rule does not provide for

¶164

Signature Not Verified

¶165

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶166

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 19 of 31

¶167

continuation on administrative posts beyond the age of 62 years. On the contrary, the categories of duties enumerated in the provision indicate the nature of assignments to which such continuation is confined.

¶168

The amendment further provides that doctors who fail to exercise the option within the stipulated period shall superannuate upon attaining the age of 62 years. The prescription of an option and the consequences attached thereto reinforce the conclusion that continuation beyond 62 years is in the nature of an enabling provision, subject to conditions, and not an automatic extension of service.

¶169

When the language of a statutory rule is clear and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to its plain meaning. The substituted Rule 56(bb), read as a whole, leaves little room for doubt that the age of superannuation remains 62 years and that continuation up to 65 years is conditional and confined to specified functional roles. The Tribunal, in the Impugned Order, has interpreted the provision in this manner and held that continuation beyond 62 years is optional and not a matter of right. Upon an independent consideration of the rule, this Court finds no infirmity in that interpretation.

¶170

II. Whether Exclusion from Administrative Posts Amounts to Reduction in Rank or Divestment of Status?

¶171

The next limb of the Petitioners‟ challenge is that the stipulation confining continuation beyond the age of 62 years to teaching, clinical, patient care, public health and advisory functions has the effect of divesting them of administrative responsibilities and thereby amounts to reduction in rank or status.

¶172

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶173

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 20 of 31

¶174

This contention proceeds on the assumption that holding an administrative post constitutes an immutable component of the Petitioners‟ service conditions and that cessation of such assignment, upon attaining the age of 62 years, necessarily entails a civil consequence in the nature of reduction in rank. The argument, however, cannot be accepted in the statutory context in which the amended Rule 56(bb) operates.

¶175

It is not in dispute that the amended rule prescribes superannuation at the age of 62 years as the norm. Continuation up to 65 years is made permissible only upon exercise of an option and subject to the nature of duties specified therein. Once the rule itself confines such extended tenure to particular functional domains, continuation in administrative assignments beyond the age of 62 years stands excluded by necessary implication.

¶176

It is not shown that administrative charge constitutes a separate cadre distinct from the substantive post held by the concerned doctors. The amended rule does not alter the substantive rank held by the concerned doctors. It merely regulates the nature of duties to be discharged during the period of extended tenure beyond the prescribed age of superannuation. The distinction between rank and assignment is well recognised in service jurisprudence. A change in duties, consistent with the governing rule, does not ipso facto amount to reduction in rank.

¶177

It is also material to note that the Petitioners, upon attaining the age of 62 years, have no right to continue in service unless they opt for the extended tenure contemplated under the rule. If continuation

¶178

Signature Not Verified

¶179

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶180

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 21 of 31

¶181

itself is conditional and not automatic, the terms subject to which such continuation is granted cannot be characterised as punitive or as amounting to demotion.

¶182

The essence of reduction in rank lies in lowering an employee in the hierarchy of service or in diminishing the substantive status attached to the post. The amended Rule 56(bb) does not provide for reversion to a lower cadre, reduction in pay, or alteration of substantive designation. It only stipulates that the extended period of service, beyond the normal age of superannuation, shall be devoted to specified professional functions rather than administrative assignments.

¶183

Viewed thus, the restriction on holding administrative posts after attaining the age of 62 years does not constitute reduction in rank. It is a regulatory condition attached to an optional extension of service and forms part of the statutory framework governing such continuation.

¶184

In the allied context of continuation beyond the normal age of superannuation, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr. Kamla Singh v. State of Haryana¹¹ upheld a policy whereby, notwithstanding the normal retirement age of 58 years under the governing service rules, doctors were permitted to continue up to 65 years subject to the condition that, upon attaining the age of 58 years, they would cease to hold administrative posts and would be assigned only clinical duties. The challenge to the said stipulation was repelled, the Court holding that the extension beyond the prescribed age was

¶185

11 CWP No. 24557 of 2016, decided on 08.05.2019

¶186

Signature Not Verified

¶187

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶188

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 22 of 31

¶189

structured in public interest and that no vested right existed to insist upon continuation in administrative assignments. The decision illustrates that continuation beyond the normal age of superannuation may validly be made subject to functional limitations flowing from a statutory or authorised policy framework.

¶190

III. Whether the Petitioners Possess a Vested or Indefeasible Right to Continue up to 65 Years with Administrative Charge?

¶191

The central plank of the Petitioners‟ case is that the Notification dated 31.05.2016 created a vested and indefeasible right to continue in service up to the age of 65 years, along with all incidents of the post, including administrative charge. According to them, the subsequent amendments dilute this right and are therefore impermissible.

¶192

This contention requires careful examination of the nature of the right, if any, that accrued under the Notification dated 31.05.2016. The power to prescribe the age of superannuation flows from the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rules framed thereunder are subject to amendment, modification or substitution in accordance with law.

¶193

It is well settled that a Government servant has no vested right in the age of superannuation as such. The age of retirement is a condition of service which may be altered by the competent rulemaking authority, subject to constitutional limitations. An enhancement of the age of superannuation, introduced in public interest, does not create an indefeasible right immune from subsequent statutory modification.

¶194

Signature Not Verified

¶195

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶196

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 23 of 31

¶197

In the present case, even assuming that the Notification dated 31.05.2016 enhanced the age of superannuation to 65 years, the same was effected by amendment of Rule 56(bb) in exercise of rule-making power under Article 309. The substituted Rule 56(bb), notified on 11.08.2018, represents a valid exercise of the same power. Once the rule stands amended, the rights and obligations of the Petitioners must be governed by the rule as it exists.

¶198

The Petitioners cannot claim a vested right in the continuance of a particular statutory regime. Nor can they assert that the executive is precluded from refining or restructuring service conditions in light of administrative exigencies or policy considerations, so long as such action is taken within the bounds of constitutional and statutory authority.

¶199

In the present case, the amended rule does not retrospectively curtail any accrued benefit. It regulates the conditions subject to which continuation beyond 62 years may be availed. The Petitioners, therefore, cannot successfully contend that an indefeasible right to continue up to 65 years with administrative charge stood crystallised in their favour.

¶200

IV. Challenge on the Ground of Lack of Authority / Excess of Delegated Power:

¶201

The Petitioners have also sought to contend that the stipulation confining continuation beyond the age of 62 years to teaching, clinical, patient care, public health and advisory functions travels beyond the scope of the enabling power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and amounts to an impermissible alteration of

¶202

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶203

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 24 of 31

¶204

service conditions.

¶205

The submission does not merit acceptance. The proviso to Article 309 confers upon the competent authority the power to frame rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union. The expression “conditions of service” has consistently been understood to include matters relating to tenure, superannuation, duties, responsibilities and assignments attached to a post.

¶206

The amended Rule 56(bb), as notified on 11.08.2018, forms part of the Fundamental Rules framed in exercise of the said constitutional power. The stipulation that continuation beyond 62 years shall be confined to specified functional domains is embedded in the rule itself. It is not an executive instruction dehors the statutory framework. Once the rule validly prescribes the nature of duties during extended tenure, the same cannot be characterised as an act in excess of delegated authority. The requirement of Cabinet approval pertains to internal governmental procedure. Once the rule stands notified in exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309, its validity cannot be questioned on the ground of alleged absence of Cabinet approval, unless such approval is mandated by statute.

¶207

It is also pertinent that the rule does not operate selectively or arbitrarily against the Petitioners. The prescription applies uniformly to all doctors falling within the categories enumerated therein, save and except those expressly carved out by the proviso. The classification, therefore, flows directly from the statutory text and not from any discretionary or ad hoc administrative action. The stipulation

¶208

Signature Not Verified

¶209

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶210

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 25 of 31

¶211

regarding the nature of duties during extended tenure flows directly from the statutory text of Rule 56(bb) itself. The prescribed option form merely reflects and operationalises the statutory condition and does not introduce any independent restriction. The reliance placed upon Tulsyan NEC Ltd. ( supra ) and St. John’s Teachers Training Institute ( supra ) is misplaced, inasmuch as the restriction in the present case emanates from the statutory text of Rule 56(bb) itself and not from any executive instruction seeking to override or supplement the rule.

¶212

In the absence of any demonstrated constitutional infirmity, the Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the rule-making authority in matters of policy concerning utilisation of medical personnel in public service. The scope of judicial review in such matters is limited to examining legality, not wisdom.

¶213

V. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 16:

¶214

The Petitioners have further urged that the amended framework results in hostile discrimination inasmuch as certain categories of doctors are permitted to continue up to 65 years without restriction, while others are confined to specified roles.

¶215

The contention overlooks the plain structure of the rule. The proviso to clause (bb) expressly stipulates that the age of superannuation in respect of doctors belonging to the General Duty Medical Officers sub-cadre of Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles, and Specialist Medical Officers of such Forces, shall be sixty-five years. This constitutes a distinct class carved out by the rule

¶216

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶217

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 26 of 31

¶218

itself.

¶219

It is trite that Article 14 does not forbid reasonable classification. The differentiation must be founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The rule-making authority, in its wisdom, has treated doctors serving in specified uniformed forces as a separate category. No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that such classification is manifestly arbitrary or devoid of rational basis.

¶220

Equally, the Petitioners cannot invoke Article 16 to claim a right to continue in administrative assignments beyond the age prescribed by the governing rule. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment does not extend to claiming continuation in service contrary to statutory prescription. Mere allegation of isolated deviations, even if assumed, cannot render the statutory rule unconstitutional. An illegality, if any, cannot be perpetuated on the ground of parity.

¶221

The amended Rule 56(bb) operates prospectively and uniformly within each identified category. In the absence of arbitrariness or hostile discrimination, no violation of Articles 14 or 16 is made out.

¶222

VI. Issue Relating to Promotion, Seniority and Stagnation:

¶223

An ancillary argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioners is that exclusion from administrative posts after attaining the age of 62 years adversely affects their promotional prospects and seniority position.

¶224

Signature Not Verified

¶225

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶226

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 27 of 31

¶227

This submission fails to appreciate the temporal context of the rule. Where the governing rule treats 62 years as the normal age of superannuation and permits continuation beyond that age only for specified purposes, promotional progression within the administrative hierarchy cannot be claimed as of right during such conditional extended tenure. Once superannuation at 62 years is the norm under the rule, no question of further promotional entitlement as of right arises beyond that stage. The decision in Shardul Singh ( supra ) dealt with denial of consideration within the normal tenure of service and has no application where continuation itself beyond 62 years is conditional under the governing rule.

¶228

Continuation up to 65 years is not an extension of the normal tenure in the same sense as service prior to superannuation. It is a conditional retention in service for specified purposes. The rule does not envisage promotional advancement during such extended tenure in administrative hierarchy. The absence of promotional avenues during a conditional extension cannot be equated with deprivation of a vested promotional right.

¶229

On the contrary, as noticed by the Tribunal, the restriction on holding administrative posts beyond 62 years subserves the objective of preventing stagnation and enabling progression within the cadre. The policy choice underlying the amendment cannot be said to be irrational or unconstitutional. Exclusion of officers who had attained the age of 62 years from consideration in the common seniority list for promotion to HAG is consistent with the statutory framework which treats 62 years as the normal age of superannuation.

¶230

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶231

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 28 of 31

¶232

VII. Scope of Judicial Review and Final Determination:

¶233

Before parting, it is necessary to reiterate that the present batch of Petitions arises from a challenge to a statutory rule framed in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and to the order of the Tribunal upholding the same. The scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in matters involving policy choices reflected in statutory service rules, is circumscribed.

¶234

The Court does not sit in appeal over the wisdom of the rulemaking authority. Unless a rule is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, ultra vires the parent power, or violative of a constitutional or statutory provision, judicial review does not extend to substituting the Court‟s perception of desirability for that of the competent authority. The judgments in Federation of Railway Officers Association ( supra ) and Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association ( supra ) merely reiterate the limited scope of judicial review over policy decisions. The Impugned Rule does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness.

¶235

In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the amended Rule 56(bb), introduced vide Notification dated 11.08.2018, (i) retains the age of superannuation at 62 years as the norm; (ii) provides an enabling and conditional continuation up to 65 years in specified functional domains; and (iii) does not result in reduction of rank, deprivation of accrued benefits, or hostile discrimination within the meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶236

Signature Not Verified

¶237

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶238

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 29 of 31

¶239

The contention that the earlier Notification dated 31.05.2016 created an absolute and indefeasible right to continue in service up to the age of 65 years, irrespective of the nature of duties to be assigned, has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. We find no infirmity, factual or legal, in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in the Impugned Order dated 14.08.2019.

¶240

The distinction drawn by the amended rule between administrative assignments and teaching/clinical/public health functions during the extended period of service cannot be said to be arbitrary or constitutionally impermissible. The rule operates uniformly within the identified categories and falls squarely within the competence of the rule-making authority.

¶241

The authorities relied upon by the Petitioners, namely Tulsyan NEC Ltd. ( supra ), St. John’s Teachers Training Institute ( supra ), Shardul Singh ( supra ), Federation of Railway Officers Association ( supra ), and Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association ( supra ), do not advance their case. The said decisions reiterate settled principles relating to:

¶242

i. supremacy of statutory rules over executive instructions,

¶243

ii. the right to be considered for promotion during the normal tenure of service, and

¶244

iii. the scope of judicial review over policy decisions

¶245

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned amendment flows directly from the statutory text of Rule 56(bb), does not deny any vested promotional right within the normal tenure, and does not

¶246

Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 12:22:34

¶247

W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 30 of 31

¶248

suffer from manifest arbitrariness. The precedents relied upon are, therefore, distinguishable.

¶249

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for interference with the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal. The challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 11.08.2018, insofar as it substitutes clause (bb) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, is devoid of merit.

¶250

CONCLUSION:

¶251