Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Prakash Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. C. L. Saini, Additional Advocate General, on advance copy, enters appearance on behalf of the State.
2. Heard.
3. Following reliefs have been sought:-
"i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned notification dated 31.03.2016 by which the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation has been extended only to the Doctors of Medical & Health Services and not to the Doctors of Ayurvedic and Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag of Government of Rajasthan, be declared as ultra-vires and the same may kindly be strike down to the extent it deprives the Doctors of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service from getting the benefit of enhanced age of retirement upto 62 years and further it may be held that the petitioners who were Doctors of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service, are also entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years, with all consequential benefits;
ii) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to treat the petitioners continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits including refixation of pension etc. with
Discriminatory classification of age of superannuation for Ayurvedic doctors violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Discrimination in fixing the age of superannuation for Ayurvedic doctors was held to be unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The court ruled that Ayurvedic doctors are entitled to the same retirement age as Allopathic doctors, affirming that discriminatory classifications violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Once it is found that differentiation is based on reasonable classification, decision cannot be held to be violative of principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of In....
(1) ‘No work should go unpaid’ should be appropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases where service rendered by respondent doctors have been productive both for patients and also employer.(2) D....
Discrimination in the enhancement of the age of superannuation based on the type of medical degree held is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
