Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between municipal corporations and ayurvedic doctors regarding the enhancement of superannuation age from 60 to 65 years. Initially, the Government of India's order dated 31.05.2016 applied only to allopathic doctors under the Central Health Scheme, and the North Delhi Municipal Corporation adopted this for its allopathic doctors on 30.06.2016. Ayurvedic doctors were excluded, leading them to file applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Tribunal, in its common final order dated 24.08.2017, upheld their claim, directing that ayurvedic doctors be allowed to serve until 65 years and be reinstated if already superannuated. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the municipal corporations' writ petitions, affirming the Tribunal's decision. During proceedings, the Ministry of AYUSH issued an order on 24.11.2017, enhancing the superannuation age for AYUSH doctors to 65 years effective from 27.09.2017, but with administrative restrictions after age 62. The core legal issues were whether the discrimination between allopathic and ayurvedic doctors violated Article 14 and whether ayurvedic doctors were entitled to arrears of salary for the period they continued in service under interim court orders without pay. The appellants argued that the benefit should apply only from 27.09.2017 and that arrears should not be paid due to financial implications and interim order terms. The respondents contended that the differential treatment was discriminatory and that the AYUSH Ministry's order aligned with the earlier policy, justifying uniform application. The court analyzed that both categories of doctors perform similar medical duties, making the exclusion arbitrary and violative of Article 14. It rejected the appellants' reliance on cutoff dates and financial burden, holding that once discrimination is established, full arrears must be paid as interim orders did not extinguish entitlement. The court upheld the lower courts' decisions, directing that ayurvedic doctors are entitled to enhanced superannuation age of 65 years and arrears of salary for the period served beyond 60 years under interim orders.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Discrimination between allopathic and ayurvedic doctors in superannuation age - The court considered whether differential treatment between allopathic and ayurvedic doctors regarding enhanced superannuation age violated Article 14 - Held that such discrimination is impermissible as both categories are similarly situated medical professionals, and the AYUSH Ministry's subsequent order extended the benefit to ayurvedic doctors, making the earlier exclusion arbitrary (Paras 13-14). B) Service Law - Superannuation Age - Enhancement and Retrospective Application - Fundamental Rules, 1922 and Government Orders - Entitlement to arrears of salary for period served under interim orders - The court addressed whether ayurvedic doctors who continued in service beyond 60 years under interim orders were entitled to arrears of salary - Held that once discrimination is established, they are entitled to full arrears as the interim orders did not waive their rights, and financial burden on the employer is not a valid ground to deny relief (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether ayurvedic doctors are entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years, similar to allopathic doctors, and entitled to arrears of salary for the period they continued in service under interim orders.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that ayurvedic doctors are entitled to enhanced superannuation age of 65 years and arrears of salary for the period they continued in service under interim orders.
Law Points
- Discrimination in service conditions between allopathic and ayurvedic doctors violates Article 14 of the Constitution
- Enhanced superannuation age must be uniformly applied to similarly situated employees
- Interim orders allowing continuation of service without salary do not preclude entitlement to arrears upon final adjudication
