Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ and Vivek Jain, J.
O.P. Singh (Dr.) & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petitions No. 17639 of 2022, 9935 of 2022, 10330 of 2023, 18550 of 2023, 16581 of 2024 and 41615 of 2024 (Jabalpur); Decided on 19.5.2025
(1) Retirement -- fixing age of retirement is purely a policy matter -- lies within domain of State Government -- it is not for Courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees under relevant service rules and regulations. 2023 SCC Online SC 1074 followed. [Para 17]
(2) Practice -- Courts ordinarily do not interfere with policy decisions made by Government -- unless those decisions are demonstrably unconstitutional or violative of fundamental rights. AIR 1986 SC 515, 2022 SCC Online SC 533 followed. [Para 17]
(3) Fundamental Rules -- R. 56(1-c)(a) [as amended by S. 2(iii) of M. P. Shaskiya Sevak (AdhivarishikiAyu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011 by State Government vide Gazette Notification dated 6.5.2011] -- Constitution of India -- Art. 14 -- M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 -- S. 2 -- validity of sub-rule (1-c)(a) of Fundamental Rule 56 -- amendment excludes veterinary doctors from benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years at par with allopathic doctors -- held -- merely saying that allopathic doctors and ayush doctors who are treating human patients cannot be equated with veterinary doctors as they are treating non-human patients, not acceptable -- while Government has right to set retirement polices, these must not create arbitrary or discriminatory classifications -- specifically any classification based on age must have rational nexus to legitimate objective -- impugned amendment so far as it excludes veterinary doctors, depriving them of benefit of enhancement of age of retirement up to 65 years, declared discriminatory and unconstitutional on principle of equality guaranteed under Art. 14 of Constitution -- State Government directed to come up with appropriate provision and rules fixing age of retirement of veterinary doctors up to 65 years at earliest, till then this judgment shall hold the field. (2021) 17 SCC 642, (2023) 15 SCC 257, (1983) 2 SCC 33, (2012) 11 SCC 1, (2022) 13 SCC 256, (2014) 7 SCC 547, W.P. (S) No. 1737 of 2021 decided on 26.11.2024 (Jhar.) and C.W.P. No. 1599 of 2020 decided on 2.3.2023 (HP) discussed. W. P. No. 5870 of 2013(S) decided on 24.3.2022, W.P. No. 28039 of 2021, (2011) 6 SCC 570, (2023) 16 SCC 462, AIR 1992 SC 1277 and SLP No. 3946 of 2023 decided on 4.12.2024 referred to. [Paras 34 to 37]
¼1½ lsokfuo`fÙk & lsokfuo`fÙk vk;q dk fu;ru fo'kq)r% uhfr dk fo"k; & gS jkT; ljdkj ds vf/kdkj{ks= esa vkrk gS & lqlaxr lsok fu;eksa vkSj fofu;eksa ds v/khu ljdkjh deZpkjhx.k dks ykxw gksus okyh lsokfuo`fÙk vk;q ls fHkUu vk;q fofgr djuk U;k;ky;ksa dk dk;Z ughaA 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1074 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17½
¼2½ çFkk & U;k;ky; lkekU;r% ljdkj }kjk fd, x, uhfr fo"k;d fofu'p;ksa esa gLr{ksi ugha djrs & tc rd fd og fofu'p; çek.; :i ls vlaoS/kkfud ;k ewy vf/kdkjksa ds vfrØked ugha gksaA ,vkbvkj 1986 ,llh 515] 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 533 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17½
¼3½ ewy fu;e & fu- 56¼1&x½ ¼d½ jkT; ljdkj dh jkti= vf/klwpuk fnukad 6-5-2011 }kjk e-ç- 'kkldh; lsod ¼vf/kokf"kdh&vkq½ la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e 2011 dh /kkjk 2¼rhu½ }kjk ;Fkk la'kksf/kr] & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 14 & e-ç- 'kkldh; lsod ¼vf/kokf"kZdhZ vk;q½ vf/kfu;e] 1967 & /kkjk 2 & ewy fu;e 56 ds mifu;e ¼1&x½ ¼d½ dh fof/kekU;rk & la'kks/ku i'kq fpfdRldksa dks ,syksiSfFkd fpfdRldksa ds leku vf/kokf"kZdh&vkq esa 62 ls 65 o"kZ dh o`f) fd, tkus ds Qk;ns ls ckgj j[krk gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ek= ;g dguk Lohdk;Z ugha fd ekuo jksfx;ksa dk mipkj djus okys ,syksiSfFkd fpfdRldksa vkSj vk;q"k fpfdRldksa dh cjkcjh i'kq fpfdRldksa ls ugha dh tk ldrh D;ksafd og xSj&ekuo jksfx;ksa dk mipkj djrs gSa & ;|fi ljdkj dks lsokfuo`fÙk dh uhfr;k¡ r; djus dk vf/kdkj gS] rFkkfi buls euekuk ;k foHksndkjh oxhZdj.k l`ftr ugha gksuk pkfg, & fofufnZ"Vr% vk;q ij vk/kkfjr fdlh Hkh oxhZdj.k dk fof/klEer mn~ns'; ls rdZiw.kZ laca/k gksuk vko';d gS & vkf{kIr la'kks/ku] tgk¡ rd og i'kq fpfdRldksa dks lsokfuo`fÙk vk;q 65 o"kZ rd cढ+k, tkus ds Qk;ns ls oafpr djrs gq, ckgj j[krk gS] Hkkjr ds lafoèkku ds vuqPNsn 14 esa çR;kHkwr lekurk ds fl)kar ij foHksndkjh vkSj vlaoS/kkfud ?kksf"kr & jkT; ljdkj dks ;FkklaHko 'kh?kz i'kq fpfdRldksa dh lsokfuo`fÙk dh vk;q 65 o"kZ fu;r djrs gq, leqfpr mica/k vkSj fu;e rS;kj djus dk funs'k] rc rd ;g fo"k; bl fu.kZ; ls fofu;fer gksxkA ¼2021½ 17 ,llhlh 642] ¼2023½ 15 ,llhlh 257] ¼1983½ 2 ,llhlh 33] ¼2012½ 11 ,llhlh 1] ¼2022½ 13 ,llhlh 256- ¼2014½ 7 ,llhlh 547] fjV ;kfpdk ¼,l½ Øekad 1737 lu~ 2021 fu.khZr fnukad 26-11-2024 ¼>kj-½ rFkk lh-MCY;w-ih- Øekad 1599 lu~ 2020 fu.khZr fnukad 2-3-2023 ¼fg-Á-½ foosfprA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 5870 lu~ 2013 ¼,l½ fu.khZr fnukad 24-3-2022- fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 28039 lu~ 2021] ¼2011½ 6 ,llhlh 570] ¼2023½ 16 ,llhlh 462] ,vkbvkj 1992 ,llh 1277 rFkk fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk Øekad 3946 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 4-12-2024 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 34 ls 37½
ORDER
Kait, C.J. -- 1. In all these writ petitions, a common question of fact and law is involved and therefore, they are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts and annexures of WP No.17639 of 2022 are being taken into consideration. The reliefs sought for in the matter are as follows :--
“(i) To issue an appropriate writ declaring Sub-Rule (1-c)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011 being ultra-vires to Constitution of India to the extent that it discriminate between Allopathic Doctors and Veterinary Doctors with respect to date of superannuation.
(ii) To grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The petitioners are qualified Veterinary Surgeons working with the State of Madhya Pradesh in Animal Husbandry and Dairy Department. They joined their services as Veterinary Doctor with the State of M.P. during 1983 to 1988. Initially the age of retirement was 60 years as per Fundamental Rules 56., thereafter, the same was enhanced to 62 years vide amendment notification dated 31.3.2018 (Annexure P/5). The State of Madhya Pradesh by enacting the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011 amended the Fundamental Rule 56 and substituted section 2 in the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, whereby the retirement age of Government Doctors working under Madhya Pradesh Public Health & Family Welfare Department has been increased to 65 years and the retirement age of other departments including the veterinary services in which the petitioners are working was kept at 60 years. Thereafter on 31.3.2018 another Gazette Notification has been issued by the State Government increasing the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years.
4. A common grievance of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is with regard to increase of age of retirement from 62 to 65 years. The petitioners herein are challenging the amendment in Clause (1-c)/(a) published in Gazette Notification dated 6.5.2011 (Annexure-P/3), by which the retirement age of the Medical Doctors has been increased from 62 to 65 years and the petitioners who are rendering similar services in Veterinary Department are yet to retire after attaining the age of 62 years. The services of petitioners and the services of doctors appointed under Health and Family Welfare Department as per Sub-rule (1-c)/(a) are similar and identical and therefore, vide impugned amendment of 2011, discrimination is being caused amongst the veterinary doctors, who are rendering similar services as that of Medical Doctors to the State of Madhya Pradesh. This obstinacy of the respondent No.1 & 2 not only amounts to gross discrimination but also violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India thereby rendering Clause (1-c)/(a) of the amendment dated 6.5.2011 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The petitioners preferred present petitions seeking equal treatment to the Veterinary Doctors, thereby challenging the impugned amendment only to the extent that it excludes services of Veterinary Doctors working in Veterinary Department of State of Madhya Pradesh from the increased age of superannuation of 65 years.
5. The respondents have filed their reply in WP No.10330/2023 and adopted the same in all other writ petitions, wherein they have rebutted the averments made in the writ petitions. The respondents stated that fixing of the age of retirement of any employee falls within the domain of a policy decision and is the exclusive prerogative of the employer. Such rule is not liable for interference in exercise of the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, until and unless (i) the rule making authority lacked the legislative competence to make the rules; (i
Differing retirement ages for Ayurvedic and Allopathic doctors violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as both perform similar functions.
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 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 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.
(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
