Dr. Akhileshwar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners ----------- : M/s. Manoj Tandon, Siddarth Ranjan, Neha Bhardwaj, Karamjit S. Chhabra, Advocates (In W.P.(S) No.6497/2018) Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate (In W.P.(S) No.7340/2017) Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : C.A.V. on 13.08.2025 Pronounced on 07 / 11 /2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since both these writ petitions involve common issue; as such, both were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner in W.P.S Case No.7340 of 2017 was appointed as Homeopathy Doctor at Zila parishad, Dhanbad on

01.09.1981. Further Petitioner no.1 in W.P.S. Case. No 6497 of 2018 was appointed on 09.11.2000 as Ayurveda Medical officer and was posted at State Ayurvedic Dispensary, Manoharpur, Chaibasa and the Petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 12.12.1983 and he joined on

19.12.1983 as Homeopathic Chikitsak, now known as Homeopathic Medical Officer.

4. These Petitioners were allocated State of Jharkhand cadre after bifurcation of erstwhile State of Bihar. They were under anticipation that there cannot be any alteration in their service conditions amongst the Doctors, who remained in the erstwhile State of Bihar, as per section 73 of the Bihar Re-Organization Act, 2000. Initially, these writ applications were preferred praying for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to forthwith enhance the age of superannuation of these petitioners from 60 years to 65 years on the ground that the recommendation of 6th Pay Revision Commission, which has been adopted by the Government of Jharkhand on 15.09.2008; whereby, the committee has recommended that all the Doctors should be treated at par for the purpose of pay and allowance and service conditions and also on the ground that the Allopathic Doctors in the State of Jharkhand have already been given the benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 2 years vide circular dated 23.07.2011.

5. During pendency of these writ petitions, vide resolution dated

08.01.2021, the State Government enhanced the age of the Ayush Doctors from 60 to 65 years with a stipulation that it will be having effect prospectively. The respective Petitioners by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3201 of 2025 in W.P.(S) No.7340 of 2017 and I.A. No. 5266 of 2025 in W.P.(S) No.6497 of 2018, respectively have further prayed of quashing of limited portion of resolution dated 08.01.2021; whereby the decision was taken that the said resolution of enhancement of age of Ayush Doctors from 60 to 65 years will be applicable from the date of resolution. The said interlocutory applications were allowed.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners in both these Writ petitions have submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition the Government came up with resolution dated 08.01.2021; whereby the age of Ayush Doctors has been enhanced; however, the resolution has been given effect prospectively and this needs to be corrected on the ground that the recommendation of 6th Pay Revision Commission, which has been adopted by the Govt. of Jharkhand on 15.09.2008; whereby, the Committee has recommended that all the Doctors should be treated at par for pay and allowance and service conditions. Accordingly, the Ayush Doctors should also be granted the benefit of age of enhancement, w.e.f. the year 2011 itself, when the Allopathic Doctors have been granted the same benefit.

7. It has been submitted that the cut-off date that has been fixed as

08.01.2021, i.e. the date of issuance of resolution, excludes the Petitioners from getting the benefit of enhancement of age of retirement of 60-65 years as some of the petitioners have already retired prior to 2021. Therefore, it should be given effect retrospectively with effect from 23.07.2011 when the Allopathic Doctors have been granted the same benefit.

8. It has been further submitted by Ld. Counsels for the respective Petitioners that the issue involved in these writ applications has 3 already been dealt by this Court in W.P.S.No.209 of 2021 and analogous cases wherein this Court held that the resolution dated

08.01.2021, should be given effect retrospectively from the date, the Allopathic Doctors were given the benefit of enhancement of age from 60 to 65 years; which will give the petitioners their due right to claim the benefits of increased age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years.

9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents though oppose the prayer in the instant Writ applications as per their stand in the Counter Affidavit; however, could not controvert that issue involved in these Writ applications are squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.S.No.209 of 2021and analogous cases.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and judgment passed by this Court in W.P.S.No.209 of 2021and analogous cases, the question that arises for consideration in the present writ petitions is; whether the resolution dated 08.01.2021 be given effect retrospectively from

23.07.2011.

11. It transpires that issue involved in these Writ applications has already been settled by this Court in W.P.S.No.209 of 2021 and analogous cases. For brevity, relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are quoted herein below: “10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, the question that arises for consideration in the present writ petitions is; whether the resolution dated 08.01.2021 be given effect to retrospectively from 23.07.2011 as sought for by the petitioners by way of I.A No. 427 of 2021?

11. It appears from record that the State of Jharkhand has adopted by its resolution dated 28.02.2009, that the service condition prescribed by the Central Government will be applicable on the counterpart State employees. By this rationality, the age of the Ayurvedic Medical Officers should have been enhanced to 65 years, in accordance with the Central Government decision, wherein the age of retirement of Ayurvedic Medical Officers has already been declared to be 65 years [Refer the extract of the resolution dated 28.02.2009, Annexure 6 (Series)]. In spite of the above-mentioned resolution dated 28.02.2009, the benefit of the same had not been accorded to the Ayurvedic Medical Officers and their retirement age had not been enhanced to 65 years, till the resolution dated 08.01. 2021.

12. It further transpires that the 6th Central Pay Commission’s report had been adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 15.09.2008; by way of which the Ayurvedic Doctors have been given at par treatment with the Allopathic Doctors and by issuance of the circular on 23.07.2011, the Allopathic Doctors have been given the benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years by making necessary modifications in Rule 73 4 of the Jharkhand Service Code. However, in contempt of the said report, the age of superannuation of Ayurvedic Doctors had not been enhanced from 60 to 65 years till 2021.

13. Thus, it can safely be easily inferred that they have suffered unequal treatment on account of the same as the petitioners were also eligible to be given enhancement in the age of superannuation with respect to the circular dated 23.07.2011 but in spite of lapse of more than 10 years i.e. till 08.01.2021, no decision in respect of the same was taken by the respondent authorities in spite of repeated representations having been made by the petitioners. This has deprived the petitioners from the benefits arising out of the increase in age of superannuation for a long period of time for the reason that they were forced to retire at an early age of 60 years thus, robbing them of the retirement benefits which they would have otherwise acquired had their age of superannuation been increased to 65 years.

14. It is also evident from record that the petitioners have come to the State of Jharkhand after allocation of their cadre in anticipation that there cannot be any discrimination in the service conditions of the Ayurvedic Doctors with that of the Ayurvedic doctors who remained in the State of Bihar but in the highly arbitrary and illegal manner, the service condition of the petitioners have been altered by not giving them the benefit of enhancement in age from 60 to 65 years, while the doctors who are in the existing State of Bihar have already been given the said benefit which thereby is contrary to the statutory provision as contained in section 73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000.

15. These facts clearly indicates that there has indeed been alteration in the service conditions of the Ayurvedic Doctors after their allocation in the State of Jharkhand from the State of Bihar, as their age of superannuation has not been increased from 60 to 65 years till 08.01.2021; which is discriminatory and arbitrary on their part, thereby, violating the fundamental principles and essence of Article 14 enshrined in the Constitution of India.

16. Similar issue was raised in the case of Dr. Girish Chandra Prasad (supra), whereby the petitioner therein belonging to the same department and holding the same post had preferred writ petition for enhancement of age for 60 to 65 years. The matter was duly considered by this Court and direction has been issued upon the respondents to consider the case and pass appropriate order for age enhancement in accordance with law.

17. In yet another case, i.e. the case of Jyotish Chandra Singh & others (supra), this Court has held that the government itself had issued a notification dated 15.09.2016, whereby decision has been taken by the State of Jharkhand that the two cadres, i.e. Allopath and Ayush health services have been accorded the equal status and as such, now the plea taken by the respondents that the age of superannuation of the Ayush Doctors cannot be enhanced from 60 to 65 years; is not justified.

18. In furtherance of these judgments, the respondents have published one resolution dated 08.01.2021, whereby, it was notified in the para-4 of resolution, that the respondents are in agreement of the judgment that the doctors of the two services are to be treated at par and thus, the Ayush Doctors will have the age of retirement as 65 years, but as the petitioners content, its applicability has been limited from the date of issuance of the resolution, i.e. 08.01.2021 and this has been put to challenge in I.A No. 427 of 2021.

19. This court is of the opinion that the petitioners are right in contending that the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years via resolution dated 08.01.2021, should be given effect to retrospectively from 23.07.2011; whereby and where under the Allopathic Doctors have been given the benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years. Denying them the benefits of increase in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years, for such prolonged years had violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they have suffered unequal treatment and heavy loss due to non-increment in the age of their retirement. They have been forced to retire at the age of 60 years while the Central Health Services Doctors and Allopathic Doctors were enjoying the benefits of the increased retirement age which is highly discriminatory, unfair, unequal, unreasonable and against the principles of Natural Justice.

20. In this regard reference may be made in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & others, reported in (2021) 17 SCC 642, wherein it has been held in para-22 & 23 as under: 5 “The common contention of the appellants before us is that classification of AYUSIH doctors and doctors under CHS in different categories is reasonable and permissible in law. This however does not appeal to us and we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients. The only difference is that AYUSH doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like ayurveda, unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using allopathy for tending to their patients. In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia. Therefore, such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The Order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24-11-2017 extending the age of superannuation to 65 years also endorses such a view. This extension is in tune with the Notification of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 31-5-2016.” “The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry [F. No. D. 14019/4/2016-E-I (AYUSH)] dated 24-11- 2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31-5- 2016 to all the respondent doctors concerned, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion.” In light of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court; whereby it has upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court that the classification being made between the Allopathic and Ayush Doctors, is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both the segments perform the same function of treating and healing their patients.

21. Thus, the differential treatment that had been accorded to the Ayurvedic Doctors in the present case for such a long duration, i.e. from 2011 to 2021, is highly arbitrary and discriminatory as it has deprived them the benefits of increased age of retirement. There is no proper justification, in the eyes of law, provided by the respondent authorities so as to support their case as to why the Ayurvedic Doctors have not been granted the benefits of age enhancement for such a long period of time despite of various circulars and resolutions of the Central Government and of the State of Jharkhand itself, having notified that, both Allopathic and Ayurvedic Doctors should be treated at par.

22. Bearing in mind these facts, judgements cited, submissions made and contentions raised, it is apparent on the face of it that the respondent authorities have acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner due to which the petitioners have suffered heavy loss of retirement benefits. And even when they passed the resolution on 08.01.2021 enhancing the retirement age; these petitioners have already retired prior to 2021. Hence, the petitioners could not claim the benefits as the resolution was given effect to prospectively. This has indeed not served the purpose of justice and equity and has gravely violated their fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

23. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the resolution dated 08.01.2021, should be given effect to retrospectively from the date the Allopathic Doctors were given the benefit of enhancement of age from 60 to 65 years; which will give the petitioners their due right to claim the benefits of increased age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years and undo the injustice that has been done to them for so long.” (Emphasis Supplied)

12. Having regard to the aforesaid judgment which is squarely applicable in the these cases, it is held that the resolution dated

08.01.2021, be given effect retrospectively from the date the Allopathic Doctors were given the benefit of enhancement of age i.e.

23.07.2011 from 60 to 65 years; which will give the Petitioners their due right to claim the benefits of increased age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years and undo the injustice that has been done to them for so long and further the order dated 5.11.2018; whereby and whereunder, the claim of Petitioner No. 1 in W.P.S. Case no 6497 of 6 2018 for enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years has been rejected, is hereby, quashed and set aside.

13. The Respondent authorities are hereby directed to provide entire consequential benefits to the respective Petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

14. Accordingly, both these petitions stand allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. Date: 07/11/2025 kunal/- Uploaded on 12/11/ 2025 (Deepak Roshan, J.) 7