IMPORTANT POINT
Differing retirement ages for Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as both perform similar functions.

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 been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.01.2024

2.2 The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:

"Heard Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) - State of Rajasthan. Also heard Mr. Adeel Ahmed, Mr. Puneet Jain and Mr. Manish Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Mr. Ajay Choudhary, learned counsel appears for the applicant in application(s) for impleadment.

2. I A Nos. 66651 of 2023, 96650 of 2023 and 100293 of 2023 (applications for impleadment) are allowed.

3. The counsel for the State of Rajasthan submits that since there is shortage of Allopathic doctors serving under the Rajasthan government, a decision was taken to raise the retirement age of Allopathic doctors from 60 years to 62 years. However, since there were large number of Ayush doctors serving with the State Government, similar raising of retirement age for Ayush doctors was not considered necessary by the Government. Dr. Singhvi would then argue that different retirement age for the Allopathic doctors and the Ayush doctors would not attract the argument of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. The impugned judgment rendered by the High Court granting parity relief to the Ayush doctors was based on the judgment of this Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. reported in (2021) 17 SCC 642. In this case, the Court noted that the doctors, both under the Ayush and Allopathic stream, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish one from the other.

5. The records would show that the above decision of this Court as followed by the High Courts in Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The like decision taken by the High Court of rajasthan favouring the Ayush doctors in raising their retirement age to 62 years, is under challenge here.

6. It is relevant to note that this Court on 24.03.2022 has dismissed the State's appeal in SLP (Civil) No. 33645 of 2018 arising out of the judgment dated 03.04.2018 rendered by the High court of Uttarakhand in the WP No. 484 of 2014.

7. 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 where under parity relief on retirement age was granted to the Ayush doctors. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed."

3. Learned counsel for the State, however, would submit that another order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 503 was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the