SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 8

VIVEK CHAUDHARY
Surendra Pratap Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru Prin. Secy. Ayush Lucknow – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amrendra Nath Tripathi

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by respondent no.2 Director, Department of Homeopathy, U.P. 8th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow. By the said order petitioner is retied w.e.f. 31.12.2021 at the age of 60 years.

3. The facts of the case are that petitioner is a homeopathic doctor working with the State Government. By notification dated 31.05.2017, the age of the medical officers of the Provincial Medical and Health Service in the State of U.P. was enhanced from 60 years to 62 years. The doctors working under the Provincial Medical and Health Service are doctors of Allopathy. The services of doctors of homeopathy belong to Homeopathic Medical Service Cadre and the benefit of the notification dated 31.05.2017 is not extended to them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in 'North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and others' reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 540. Paragraph-23 and 24 of the said judgment reads:-

    "23. The common contention of the appellants befor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top