Amendments to age of superannuation regulations for doctors uphold administrative authority; no vested rights to administrative posts post-62 years established, ensuring compliance with constitutional norms.

JUGDMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

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

2. 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.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The record reflects that in one such proceeding, namely Dr. Jagdish Prasad v. Union of India , O.A. No. 494/2017, the Tribunal, after undertaking extensive discussion on the scope of the rule-making power of the Governme