Bhuvana Marni
Published on: October 4, 2022 at 18:11 IST
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that the discrimination made between “Allopathic” and “Ayurvedic” doctors by setting separate retirement ages is unconstitutional when dealing with a writ suit against a Rajasthan Government notification.
The petition filed against the notification by which the benefit of raising the retirement age was only extended to doctors of medical and health services and not to doctors of Ayurveda and Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag of the Government of Rajasthan was being dealt with by the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani.
The Ayurvedic, Chikitsa Vibhag, Unani, Homeopathy, and Naturopathic doctors were not included in the mandate of the challenged notification, which raised the retirement age for medical and health services professionals solely from 60 to 62 years old.
Aggrieved by the notification and the denial of the benefits therefrom, the petitioners went before the court asking for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or directive to the respondents ordering them to extend uniform benefits to the petitioners with all consequential benefits, including the refixation of pension along with full payment of arrears and interest amounts for premature retirement.
The court addressed the issue of whether giving different superannuation ages to Allopathic Doctors in comparison to Ayurvedic Doctors is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution in the case of Dr Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The bench cited this case.
The High Court stated, “The judgment of the Supreme Court leaves no scope for arguments on the part of the respondents to defend their acts of discrimination in the matter of fixing the age of superannuation of Ayurvedic Doctors and it has to be held that the petitioners are also entitled to continue in service till completion of the age of 62 years, which is applicable in the case of Allopathic Doctors.”
Title: Dr. Kamlesh Sharma and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others