Not increasing retirement age of Ayurvedic doctors
STAFF REPORTER
GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Assam Government’s decision in 2016 to not increase the age of retirement of Ayurvedic doctors from 60 to 65 years. The retirement age of Allopathic doctors and dental surgeons working under the Health & Family Welfare department was increased in 2016.
The writ petitions had been filed by the Assam Ayurvedic Doctors’ Service Association and other Ayurvedic doctors. The writ petitioners were primarily aggrieved by the notification dated July 30, 2016 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare (A) Department by which the age of retirement of the Allopathic doctors and dental surgeons working under the Health & Family Welfare Department of Assam was enhanced from 60 years to 65 years with immediate effect. However, the Ayurvedic doctors were left out from the purview of the said notification as a result of which, their age of retirement continued to remain 60 years. The petitioners contended that the Ayurvedic doctors are performing similar nature of duties as compared to their Allopathic/Dental counterparts and therefore, excluding the Ayurvedic doctors from the purview of the government notification dated July 30, 2016 is highly arbitrary and discriminatory.
The petitioners also contended that in view of the notification dated November 24, 2017 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Uniani, and Homoeopathy increasing the age of superannuation of all AYUSH doctors under the Ministry of AYUSH to 65 years with effect from September 27, 2017, the Assam Government was under a legal obligation to enhance the age of retirement of the Ayurvedic doctors in Assam also to 65 years. The writ petitioners appealed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of Ayurvedic doctors from 60 years to 65 years.
The Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare Department as well as the Commissioner and
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare Department had filed a joint affidavit dated September 22, 2021, placing on record the reason for which Ayurvedic doctors were not considered by the government for enhancement of the age of superannuation.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that every decision of the State would be open to challenge in the court of law for examining the constitutional validity of such decision on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any differential treatment extended to similarly situated employees would be highly discriminatory and therefore, violative of the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, he added.
On the other hand, the Advocate General, Assam argued that the reasons for which the decision not to enhance the age of retirement of Ayurvedic doctors from 60 years to 65 years had been adopted, were clearly spelt out in the affidavit filed by the State – which is to tackle the growing unemployment amongst the Ayurvedic doctors as well as the shortfall of Allopathic doctors in the State. By contending that these matters fall within the realm of policy decision of the State, the Advocate General argued that since the Cabinet decision based on which the impugned notification dated July 30, 2016 was issued, is not under challenge in these writ petitions, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, he said.
The court observed, “Health being a State subject, there can be no doubt or dispute about the fact that any decision/circular/notification of the Ministry of Health/AYUSH Ministry, Government of India would not be automatically applicable to the employees of the State Government, unless the same is specifically adopted by the government of that State by making specific amendments to the Service Rules governing the terms and conditions of service of the respective categories of employees.”
The court further said that “the terms and conditions of service of the Ayurvedic doctors in Assam is evidently governed by the Assam Ayurvedic Health Service Promotion of Medical Officer (Ayur) Orders, 2016. There is neither any rule nor any notification issued by the Government of Assam enhancing the age of superannuation of Ayurvedic doctors to 65 years from 60 years”.
The court said that although there was a classification made in the matter of enhancement of age of superannuation between two different categories of doctors, yet, such classification not only has a reasonable basis but also has a public purpose to be achieved. If the differentiation is based on reasonable classification, the decision cannot be considered to be violative of the principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The court stated that the writ petitions were “devoid of any merit” and accordingly dismissed the petitions.
Also Watch: