Back
VIVEK CHAUDHARY
Surendra Pratap Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru Prin. Secy. Ayush Lucknow – Respondent
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:-
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.
Discrimination in fixing the age of superannuation for Ayurvedic doctors was held to be unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Discriminatory classification of age of superannuation for Ayurvedic doctors violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Once it is found that differentiation is based on reasonable classification, decision cannot be held to be violative of principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of In....
(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....
The retirement age of government servants is a policy decision by the government and cannot be subject to judicial review or interference.
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
