IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Dr. Madhulika – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 27023 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-06-2023
JUDGMENT
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.
With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, by this common order, a batch of four civil writ petitions i.e CWP-27023-2014, 1431-2016, 6360-2020 and 6807-2021 involving an identical issue with regard to the retirement age of the petitioner, shall stand disposed of.
2. While deciding the case, the reference would be made to the paperbooks of CWP-27023-2014 and CWP-6360-2020. At the outset, it is important to note that out of four writ petitions filed by the equal number of petitioners, three have already retried on attaining the age of 62 years whereas Dr. Anil Kumar is the only one who is still continuing in service.
3. All the petitioners were the members of the Punjab Civil Medical Services (PCMS), a Department that deals with providing health and family welfare. The doctors are posted in these services at the hospitals, clinics etc. There is another separate cadre in the Department for medical education that primarily deals with imparting education to the students in various Govt. medical colleges situated in the State of Punjab. Though, the petitioners were working as PCMS Doctors in the various Govt. Hospitals and clinics, however, on the basis of communication dated 14.12.2007, they applied for the post of Lecturer by way of transfer. This notice of recruitment was restricted to PCMS Doctors serving in the State of Punjab. It was notified that PCMS doctors possessing the requisite qualification and experience as per Annexure-II of the Punjab Medical Education State Service (Class II) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1979 Rules'), will be posted as Lecturer or Senior Lecturer by way of transfer. For the post of Lecturer, as per Appendix C of the aforesaid Rules the following minimum qualifications are required:-
4. The petitioners were selected and appointed as the Lecturers, however, on the objection of the Medical Council of India, the petitioners and various other similarly situated doctors were redesignated as Tutor/Lecturer-cum-Medical Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'TLM'). On 23.12.2013, the Govt. took a conscious decision that the experienced earned by the TLM would be treated as the teaching experience, however, they will be considered for promotion to the higher post as per the Punjab Medical Education State Service Rules on the basis of seniority/merit of the PCMS cadre. The relevant extract of the decision reads as under:-
Reasonable classification under Article 14 allows differentiation in retirement age based on distinct roles and qualifications between medical and non-medical teaching cadres.
Classification of retirement age between medical and non-medical teachers is justified under Article 14 as it is based on reasonable differentiation of roles and qualifications.
Physical education directors are categorized as non-teaching staff under University Ordinances, retaining a superannuation age of 62, despite claims of being treated as teachers for benefit purposes.
Person appointed as visiting professor on honorary basis, could not claim the financial benefits of the salaried employee of the University as a Lecturer or other teachers of the University.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to age relaxation similar to other candidates, as supported by the Constitution of India, Article 226, and rel....
Person appointed as visiting professor on honorary basis, could not claim the financial benefits of the salaried employee of the University as a Lecturer or other teachers of the University.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.