Allowed

Mahendra Kachhwaha v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Aug 2024CW/14376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking direction for an Ayurvedic Doctor to continue in service until age 62. Relying on Supreme Court precedents holding parity between AYUSH and Allopathic doctors, the Court held that the State must allow the petitioner to work till 62 and reinstate those retired at 60 before completing 62.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner continued in service till age 62 years; respondents directed to reinstate those superannuated at 60 but not completed 62 with consequential benefits.

Mahendra Kachhwaha Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:35774]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14376/2024

¶4

Mahendra Kachhwaha s/o Shri Ram Chander, aged about 60 Years, r/o 92, Dilip Nagar, Magara Punjala, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Ayurveda Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Director, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Ajmer.

¶10

The Deputy Director, Ayurvedic Department, Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order

¶14

29/08/2024

¶15

The petitioner is an Ayurvedic Doctor and was working on the post of Principal, Government Ayurved Nurse Compounder Training Centre, Punjla, Jodhpur. He has preferred the instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the respondents to allow him to continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits. The date of birth of the petitioner is 25.09.1964 and he shall be retired from service on 30.09.2024 upon attaining the age of 60 years.

¶16

The facts relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the Government of Rajasthan issued a Notification dated 31.03.2016 whereby the age of superannuation for the Allopathic Doctors working under the Government of Rajasthan was enhanced to 62 years than to 60 years. Some Ayurvedic doctors

[2024:RJ-JD:35774]

[CW-14376/2024]

(2 of 5)

preferred a batch of writ petitions led by DBCWP

¶21

No.13496/2021 (Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs.State of Rajathan & Ors.) decided on 13.07.2022 wherein it was held that there cannot be any discrimination in the age of superannuation between the Allopathic Doctors and the Ayurvedic Doctors. The said writ petition was decided by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of

¶22

North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. and batch of cases wherein it has been held asunder:-

¶23

“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:-

¶24

“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 doctor sunder 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

[2024:RJ-JD:35774]

[CW-14376/2024]

(3 of 5)

discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017extending 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)) dated24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent doctors, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion.”

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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 up to 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 completed62 years of age, be reinstated in service forthwith.”

¶32

The respondent State of Rajasthan challenged the aforesaid

¶33

judgment by way of filing SLP No.14308-14318/2022 before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed vide

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:35774]

[CW-14376/2024]

judgment dated 30.01.2024 whereby the judgment passed by the Division Bench was affirmed and it was held as under:-

¶38

“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 whereafter parity relief on retirement age was granted to the Ayush doctors. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.”

¶39

After dismissal of the SLP, the State Government preferred are view petition before Hon’ble the Apex Court seeking review of the order dated 30.01.2024. Even after dismissal of the SLP, the respondents continued to retire Ayurvedic Doctors upon attaining the age of 60 years on the ground of pendency of review petition. Being aggrieved of the said action of the respondents, a batch of writ petitions came to be preferred by the Ayurvedic Doctors led by DBCWP No.2949/2024 (Dr. Mahendra Singh Jakhar & Ors. Vs.State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which came to be allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2024.Relevant paras of the said order have been reproduced as under:-

¶40

“4. After taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that insofar as the present petitions are concerned, the petitioners herein are 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.

¶41

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 orders in the present cases also because the petitioners in this batch of petitions are identically situated as Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma and others. Therefore, in that view of the matter, we are

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:35774]

[CW-14376/2024]

inclined to allow all these petitions. 5. 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 from31.03.2016.

¶46

While the petitioners in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.2949/2024, 3042/2024 & 2279/2024 are continuing in service, petitioner in connected D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/2024 has attained the age of superannuation. As the retirement of petitioner in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2732/2024 has taken place after 31.03.2016, he shall be deemed to continue in service up to the age of62 years. The petitioners in other writ petitions shall also continue in service up to 62 years.

¶47

The respondents are required to pass necessary orders in compliance of the order passed by this Court. Those who have been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, but have not completed the age of 62years, be reinstated in service forthwith.

¶48

The controversy raised in the instant Writ Petition is squarely covered within four corners of the orders passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court.

¶49

Accordingly, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed in terms of the order dated 13.07.2022 passed in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. (Supra) and

¶50

Dr. Mahendra Singh Jakhar & Ors. (Supra) . The petitioner shall be continued in service till he attains the age of 62 years.

¶51

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶52

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶53

203-/Devesh Thanvi/-

Mahendra Kachhwaha v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kachhwaha 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

Lad Kunwar Vs Naional Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Smt.Sulochana Devi Vs Mazid

Mishri Lal Vs Suwa Lal

Lrs of Bhanwaru Vs National Insurance Company Limited

Prahlad Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Suki Devi @ Chuki Devi and Ors.