Allowed

Dr. Ranjan Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2022CW/6312/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Government notification increasing superannuation age to 65 years only for MBBS degree holders. The Court held the exclusion of BDS/MDS medical teachers constituted unconstitutional discrimination and read down the notification to include dental doctors.

What did the court decide?

Wording 'Medical Teachers holding BDS/MDS degrees' read into the notification dated 30.03.2018; petitioner entitled to continue service till age of 65 years with consequential benefits.

Dr. Ranjan Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6312/2022

¶3

Dr. Ranjan Mathur S/o Dr Om Prakash Mathur, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 26/2/3 Rare, Opposite Chanakya Hotel And Bhram Kumari Ashram, Sadul Gunj, Bikaner (Raj.). ---Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶6

Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

Secretary, Department Of Medical Education (Group-I), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Director (Ph), Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Purohit, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Kant Vyas, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Judgment

¶11

PRONOUNCED ON ::: 15/09/2022 RESERVED ON ::: 06/09/2022

¶12

BY THE COURT: (PER HON’BLE KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

¶13

The petitioner, who is a Medical Teacher (Dental) has filed the present writ petition challenging the vires of Rule 56 of Rajasthan Civil Services Rules 1951 as amended vide notification dated 30.03.2018, whereby the age of superannuation has been increased from 62 years to 65 years only for Medical Teachers holding MBBS degree.

¶14

(2 of 6)

¶15

[CW-6312/2022]

¶16

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of writ petition are as follows:

¶17

The petitioner acquired qualification of BDS and MDS in the years 1987 and 1991 respectively from King George’s Medical College, Lucknow. After being declared successful in the selection process in the Department of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor on 10.03.1993. On 27.06.1999, the petitioner was promoted on the recommendations of DPC to the post of Associate Professor and he served at S.P. Medical College, Bikaner and Govt. Medical College, Kota under orders of posting issued by the department. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Professor on 31.03.2011 and thereafter, to the post of Senior Professor on 01.04.2013. The petitioner is presently serving on the post of Senior Professor and Head of Dentistry Department in S.P. College, Bikaner. The Medical Teachers holding degree of BDS/MDS and MBBS are promoted through same DPC and assigned administrative responsibilities in the Department of Medical/Dental Education. The State Government, vide notification dated 30.03.2018 enhanced the age of superannuation of Medical Teachers (Medicine) holding MBBS Degree from 62 years to 65 years. The petitioner being a Medical Teacher (Dental), BDS and MDS degree holder was not extended the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajeev Purohit submitted that the State Government, vide notification dated 30.03.2018 has unduly discriminated between the Medical

¶19

(3 of 6) [CW-6312/2022]

¶20

Teachers, holding MBBS degree vis-a-vis those holding BDS Degree. It was further submitted that the notification has discriminated amongst two classes at par without rationale and in contravention of provisions of Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1962’). The counsel also submitted that the Medical Teachers holding degrees of MBBS and BDS are recruited through a common mode of recruitment under the Rules of 1962 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Further, the promotions of Medical Teachers both MBBS and BDS are carried out by a common DPC. Therefore, there is no distinction between the Medical Teachers holding degrees of MBBS & MD and those holding degrees of BDS & MDS according to the Rules of 1962 be it in terms of recruitment, appointment, promotions and conditions of service along with service benefits. The counsel urged that by excluding the Medical Teachers from the purview of increase in age of superannuation, vide notification dated 30.03.2018 as opposed the State Government has discriminated the petitioner and his peers vis-a-vis the Medical Teachers holding MBBS degree in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, a direction is required to read down the impugned notification and to include the Medical Teachers holding degrees of BDS/MDS in its ambit and purview. In support of his contentions, the counsel placed reliance on judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ramesh Naresh Sharma & Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 540) .

¶21

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, Shri Manish Vyas, AAG and Shri Sudhir Tak, AAG

¶22

(4 of 6) [CW-6312/2022]

¶23

argued that the State Government, vide notification dated 30.03.2018 increased the age of superannuation of Medical Teachers, MBBS degree holders considering the fact that there is dearth of said doctors in the State. It was further submitted that the Medical Teachers holding MBBS degree and those holding BDS degree constitute two distinct classes and therefore, the notification dated 30.03.2018 cannot be said to be violative of Article 14. The counsel thus urged that the notification dated 30.03.2018 may be upheld.

¶24

Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶25

The service conditions of Medical Teachers possessing MBBS degree and BDS degree is governed by the Rules of 1962. The Medical Teachers irrespective of their stream are required to discharge similar duties. The respondents have not placed on record any material which would justify the classification made by them in formation of two separate classes among the employees governed by the same service conditions and recruitment rules. Since, statistics with regard to number of MBBS and Dental Medical Teachers available with the department has not been placed on record, it can safely be concluded that there is no intelligble differentia for treating the Medical Teachers holding the MBBS degrees and those holding BDS degree differently. On the contrary, petitioner has placed on record various documents/orders which reflect that in various services viz. Railways, Defence (Civilian Doctors under Directorate General of Armed Forces Medical Service) etc., a conscious decision has been taken to enhance the age of superannuation of dental doctors

¶26

(5 of 6) [CW-6312/2022]

¶27

from 62 years to 65 years so as to bring them at par with MBBS doctors. The action of the respondents amounts to hostile discrimination insofar as the dental doctors have been denied the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation. The notification dated 30.03.2018, issued by the Government of Rajasthan is in clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

Our view is fortified by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ramesh Naresh Sharma (supra) while dealing with the issue as to whether the AYUSH doctors are entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years), just like the allopathic doctors wherein it was held:

¶29

“ 23. 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 be inconsistent 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. 24. The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them.

¶30

(6 of 6)

¶31

[CW-6312/2022]

¶32

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. 14019/4/2016-E-I (AYUSH)) dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent-doctors, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion.”

¶33

A co-ordinate bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions led by the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. C.W. No. 13496/2021) examining a similar controversy held that action of the state in fixing age of superannuation of AYUSH doctors lower in comparison to the allopathic doctors amounts to hostile discrimination.

¶34

In the result of aforesaid discussion, the words- Medical Teachers holding BDS/MDS degrees shall be read into the notification dated 30.03.2018. Consequently, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service upto the age of 65 years. The respondent authorities shall pass necessary orders to continue Medical Teachers (Dental) in service till the age of 65 years with all consequential benefits. It is however made clear that the Medical Teachers (Dental) who have already superannuated shall not be entitled to claim reinstatement in service.

¶35

The writ petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to costs.

¶36

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶37

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶38

25-KshamaD/-

Dr. Ranjan Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ranjan Mathur v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Das Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Shri Nath Stc College

State of Rajasthan Vs Shiv Teacher Training College

Lrs of Shobha Mehta Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

Komal Khatri Vs the Honble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

State of Rajasthan Vs Mahendra Singh Rathore