IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that Ayurvedic Doctors are entitled to the same retirement age as Allopathic Doctors, affirming that discrimination based on classification is unconstitutional.

ORDER :

(Farjand Ali, J.)

1. The petitioner is an Ayurvedic Doctor and presently posted at Karmawas, Barmer has preferred the instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the respondents to allow him to continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits. The date of birth of the petitioner is 25.10.1964 and the respondents would be going to retire him from service on 31.10.2024 upon attaining the age of 60 years.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the Government of Rajasthan issued a Notification dated 31.03.2016 whereby the age of superannuation for the Allopathic Doctors working under the Government of Rajasthan was enhanced to 62 years than to 60 years. Some Ayurvedic doctors preferred a batch of writ petitions led by DBCWP No.13496/2021 (Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajathan & Ors.) decided on 13.07.2022 wherein it was held that there cannot be any discrimination in the age of superannuation between the Allopathic Doctors and the Ayurvedic Doctors. The said writ petition was decided by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors and batch of cases wherein it has been held as under:-

“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 AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D. 14019/4/2016EI (AYUSH)) dated 24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent doctors, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion.”

The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court leaves no scope for arguments on the part of the respondents to defend their action of discrimination in the matte