SC to consider Rajasthan’s plea against HC order on same retirement age for allopathic & AYUSH doctors

New Delhi, Jul 19 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider an appeal of the Rajasthan government challenging a high court verdict holding that there cannot be different age of superannuation for allopathic doctors and those practising alternative systems of medicine.

Taking note of the shortage of allopathic doctors, the Rajasthan government enhanced their age of retirement from 60 to 62 years with effect from March 31, 2016, leading to litigations by similarly placed government AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) doctors.

The retirement age of AYUSH doctors employed by the government remains unchanged at 60 years.

In its judgement, the Rajasthan High Court held there has to be the same age of retirement for all state government doctors.

Accepting the grievances of AYUSH doctors, the high court said they will be deemed to be in service up to the age of 62 years if they were to retire after March 31, 2016.

The state government has moved the apex court in appeal.

A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Rajasthan, and issued notices to 10 AYUSH doctors who had earlier filed the case against the government in the high court.

“Issue notice and tag the pleas (two) with the pending petition,” the CJI said.

The top court also allowed the law officer’s request for no coercive action against officials facing contempt in the high court.

Earlier also, the state had filed appeals in the case.

“Those who have been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, but have not completed the age of 62 years, be reinstated in service forthwith,” the high court had ordered.

The solicitor general had said around 1,000 such doctors will come back to service due to the effect of the high court verdict.

The aggrieved AYUSH doctors had alleged in the high court that having different retirement age for two sets of medical practioners was discriminatory and violated Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.

The state government, on the other hand, had submitted before the high court that since there was a shortage of allopathic doctors serving under it, a decision was taken to raise their retirement age.

It had said since a large number of AYUSH doctors were in its employ, raising their retirement age was not considered necessary.