Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, BHUWAN GOYAL
Govind Bhushan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
In this petition, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether providing the age of superannuation for Ayurvedic Doctors vis-a-vis Allopathic Doctors is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset relied upon the recent judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. reported as 2021 SCC Online SC 540, and connected appeals to submit that in the aforesaid decision, it has been held that in the matter of fixing age of superannuation, no discriminatory treatment can be meted out as between the Allopathic Doctors and Ayurvedic Doctors. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as the doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients, the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that initially the orders passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., upon being challenged, were kept in abeyance but later on the State's SLP has
Differing retirement ages for Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as both perform similar functions.
The court ruled that Ayurvedic Doctors are entitled to the same retirement age as Allopathic Doctors, affirming that discrimination based on classification is unconstitutional.
Discriminatory classification of age of superannuation for Ayurvedic doctors violates 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.
The court ruled that discrimination in retirement age among doctors performing similar functions violates equal protection principles, entitling Unani doctors to the same retirement age as Allopathic....
(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
