Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
FARJAND ALI
Zahid Ali Khan S/o M.B. Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner seeks to extend retirement age. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. supreme court judgment affirms equal retirement age. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court applies equal principles to unani doctors. (Para 5) |
| 4. writ petition granted; petitioner to retire at 62. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, who is working as a Unani Doctor under the Government of Rajasthan, 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 respondents would be going to retire him from service on 31.10.2025 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
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....
The court ruled that Ayurvedic Doctors are entitled to the same retirement age as Allopathic Doctors, affirming that discrimination based on classification is unconstitutional.
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.
Discriminatory classification of age of superannuation for Ayurvedic doctors violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Differing retirement ages for Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as both perform similar functions.
(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....
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
