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 payment of complete arrears and interest;

iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioners."

4. This Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021 and batch of petitions) has dealt with the issue as to whether providing different age of superannuation for Allopathic Doctors vis-a-vis Ayurvedic doctors is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 540 and other judicial pronouncements, it has been held as below:-

"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:-

"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 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.

23. The doctors, both under