Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 03.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 10.02.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 10.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & CM APPL. 8825/2020
DR. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat SC
GNCTD Services with Mr.
Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza
Alam & Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advs.
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari
Senior Panel Counsel for R1
+ W.P.(C) 2525/2020 & CM APPL. 8840/2020
DELHI ADMINISTRATION DOCTORS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat SC
GNCTD Services with Mr.
Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza
Alam & Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advs.
Mr. Sahil Munjal SPC with Ms.
Rhea Gandhi Adv. for Union of
India
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 1 of 31
+ W.P.(C) 2532/2020 & CM. APPL. 8855/2020
DR. LAXMI NARAIN GUPTA AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, senior
Panel Counsel for R1
+ W.P.(C) 2533/2020
JOINT ACTION COUNCIL OF SERVICE DOCTORS
ORGANISATION AND ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, senior
Panel Counsel for R1
+ W.P.(C) 7208/2020 & CM APPL. 24368/2020
DR. SHABNAM BHANDARI GROVER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, SPS
along with Ms Preeti and Mr.
Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Advs.
Mr. Nirvikar Verma, senior
Panel Counsel for R1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 2 of 31
batch of five Writ Petitions, all arising out of a common factual
background and assailing the same order dated 14.08.2019
[hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter
referred to as „the Tribunal‟], are being heard together and disposed of
by this common judgment.
2. The principal question that arises for consideration in the
present batch of matters is whether the amendment to Rule 56 of the
Fundamental Rules, effected vide Notification dated 11.08.2018,
insofar as it stipulates that doctors of the Central Health Service and
other allied services may continue in service up to the age of 65 years
only on non-administrative assignments, is arbitrary, unconstitutional,
or otherwise unsustainable in law; and whether the Tribunal was
justified in dismissing the Original Applications filed by the
Petitioners and upholding the validity of the aforesaid amendment.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
batch of Writ Petitions, it is necessary to notice the relevant and
largely undisputed factual background, which constitutes the common
substratum of all the Petitions.
4. The Petitioners are doctors belonging to the Central Health
Service [„CHS‟] and allied medical services under the Union of India.
Some of the Petitioners are individual medical officers, whereas others
are associations representing such doctors. It is not in dispute that the
controversy in all the Writ Petitions centres around the age of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 3 of 31
superannuation and the conditions governing continuation in service
beyond the age of 62 years.
5. Prior to the year 2016, the age of superannuation of doctors
under the Central Government was either 60 or 62 years, depending
upon the nature of duties and the posts held by them. With a view to
utilise the services of experienced medical professionals in the fields
of teaching and patient care, the Government of India, in exercise of
powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India,
amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules vide Notification dated
31.05.2016, thereby enhancing the age of superannuation of doctors
belonging to the specified services up to 65 years.
6. With a view to operationalise the enhancement of the age of
superannuation and to address issues that arose in its implementation,
the Government thereafter issued a further notification dated
22.03.2017, wherein it was mentioned that the Doctors shall not hold
administrative positions after 62 years of age. The said notification
gave rise to a spate of litigation before the Tribunal by doctors who
were, at the relevant time, holding administrative positions and were
aggrieved by the prospect of being divested of such responsibilities
upon attaining the age of 62 years.
7. The record reflects that in one such proceeding, namely Dr.
1
Jagdish Prasad v. Union of India , the Tribunal, after undertaking
extensive discussion on the scope of the rule-making power of the
Government and the principles governing judicial review of service
conditions, declined to interfere with the amendment. However, an
1
O.A. No. 494/2017
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 4 of 31
observation was made therein to the effect that an officer could not be
deprived of an administrative post held by him unless an equivalent
post of the same rank was created. It is not in dispute that the said
observation was stayed by this Court in proceedings arising therefrom.
8. In order to bring finality to the recurring disputes concerning
continuation in service beyond the age of 62 years and the nature of
duties to be discharged during such extended tenure, the Government
issued the Notification dated 11.08.2018, whereby Rule 56(bb) of the
Fundamental Rules was substituted. Under the said amendment, the
age of superannuation of doctors belonging to the Central Health
Service and other specified medical services was stipulated as 62
years, with an option to continue in service up to the age of 65 years,
subject to the condition that such continuation would be confined to
teaching, clinical, patient care, implementation of health programmes,
public health functions, and advisory or consultancy roles, as
determined by the competent authority. The amended provision
expressly excluded continuation on administrative posts beyond the
age of 62 years.
9. The amendment further provided a limited window to serving
doctors who had either already attained the age of 62 years or were to
attain the said age within six months from the date of publication of
the amendment, to exercise an option for continuation in service
beyond that age. Failure to exercise such option within the prescribed
period was stipulated to result in superannuation upon attaining the
age of 62 years.
10. Pursuant to the aforesaid amendment, the Ministry of Health
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 5 of 31
and Family Welfare also prescribed a formal option format, wherein
the concerned doctors were required to indicate their willingness to
continue in service up to the age of 65 years and acknowledge that
such continuation would be subject to posting on non-administrative
assignments, depending upon availability of vacancies and
administrative exigencies, as decided by the competent authority.
11. Aggrieved by the conditions attached to the continuation of
service beyond the age of 62 years, several doctors belonging to the
CHS and allied services approached the Tribunal by filing a batch of
Original Applications, including O.A. No. 3746/2018 and other
connected matters. The principal grievance raised therein was that the
impugned amendment arbitrarily deprived them of administrative
responsibilities, adversely affected their status and career progression,
and resulted in juniors being placed in positions of authority over
seniors who had opted to continue in service.
12. It was, inter alia , contended before the Tribunal that the
amendment of 2018 had the effect of divesting doctors, who were
otherwise entitled to continue till the age of 65 years, of their
administrative positions upon attaining the age of 62 years; that such
divestment amounted to reduction in rank; that the right to be
considered for promotion was adversely affected; and that the
condition of exercising an option for continuation was arbitrary and
coercive.
13. The respondents, on the other hand, opposed the Original
Applications by contending that the very object of enhancing the age
of superannuation was to utilise the expertise of senior doctors in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 6 of 31
fields of teaching and patient care, and that permitting continuation on
administrative posts beyond the age of 62 years would lead to
stagnation in the lower echelons of the service. It was further
submitted that continuation in service beyond the age of 62 years was
not a matter of right but was expressly made optional under the
amended Rule 56(bb), subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The
respondents also asserted that Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules has
been framed in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, and that the rule-making authority is
competent to amend the same in public interest. It was thus contended
that no Government servant has a vested right to insist upon
continuation in a particular assignment or administrative position
beyond the age of superannuation prescribed by the governing rule.
14. After considering the rival submissions, the Tribunal, by way of
Impugned Order, dismissed the batch of Original Applications holding
that the age of superannuation remained 62 years; that continuation
beyond that age was optional; and that the amendment did not warrant
interference.
15. Aggrieved thereby, the present batch of Writ Petitions came to
be filed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
16. Contentions of the Petitioners:
16.1 Learned counsel for the Petitioners assailed the Impugned
Order primarily on the ground that the amendment carried out to
Fundamental Rule 56(bb) vide Notification dated 31.05.2016 was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 7 of 31
clear, unconditional and unequivocal in its intent and effect. It was
contended that by virtue of the said Notification, the age of
superannuation in respect of all sub-cadres of the CHS stood enhanced
to 65 years, without any stipulation, restriction or qualification.
According to the Petitioners, the amendment brought parity among the
four sub-cadres of CHS, whose members were earlier retiring at
different ages, namely 60, 62 and 65 years in the case of General Duty
Medical Officers (GDMOs), Non-teaching/Public Health Specialists
and Teaching Specialists respectively. The Notification dated
31.05.2016, it was submitted, neither required the doctors to exercise
any option for continuation beyond 62 years nor imposed any
condition disentitling them from holding administrative posts upon
attaining that age.
16.2 It was further contended that the subsequent Notification dated
11.08.2018, read with Notification dated 05.01.2018 and Office
Memorandum dated 13.08.2018, had been erroneously interpreted by
the Tribunal. According to the Petitioners, the Notification dated
11.08.2018 does not expressly exclude doctors from performing
administrative duties or from holding administrative posts after the
age of 62 years. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that doctors
beyond the age of 62 years would be utilized only in the fields of
teaching, clinical patient care and implementation of health
programmes and public health, and not on the administrative side, is
stated to be unsustainable as such exclusion is not borne out from the
language of the Notification itself.
16.3 It was next submitted that the requirement of furnishing an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 8 of 31
“option” under the Notification dated 11.08.2018 is illusory and not a
genuine choice. It was argued that the said requirement effectively
compels doctors, upon attaining the age of 62 years, either to forgo
continuation in service or to relinquish their existing administrative
positions and work under officers junior to them. Such a consequence,
it was urged, results in a clear alteration of service conditions to their
detriment and is contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence.
It is their case that the Union Cabinet, while enhancing the age of
superannuation to 65 years, never intended to divest doctors of the
status, powers and privileges attached to their posts.
16.4 It was further contended that the form prescribed pursuant to
the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2018 travels beyond the parent
Notifications. It was submitted that in the option form, it has been
stipulated that doctors would be considered for posts other than
administrative posts, a condition which, according to the Petitioners,
finds no mention either in the Notification dated 11.08.2018 or in the
Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2018. It was argued that a form or
executive instruction cannot override, supplement or supplant the
main statutory notification or rule. In this regard, reliance was placed
upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of
2
Income Tax v. Tulsyan NEC Ltd . , and St. Johns Teachers Training
3
Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE .
16.5 The Petitioners also assailed the impugned Notifications on the
ground of lack of authority, contending that the amendments
introducing the impugned proviso to FR 56(bb) vide Notifications
2
(2011) 2 SCC 1
3
(2003) 3 SCC 321
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 9 of 31
dated 11.08.2018 and 05.01.2018 were carried out without approval of
the Cabinet and thus amount to transgression of delegated legislative
power. It was submitted that subordinate legislation must operate
strictly within the bounds of the enabling provision and cannot
override or dilute the substantive decision of the Cabinet enhancing
the age of superannuation.
16.6 It was further contended that the impugned action results in
hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. According to the Petitioners, similarly situated
doctors serving in the Assam Rifles, Central Armed Police Forces,
PGI Chandigarh, AIIMS New Delhi and other AIIMS institutions are
permitted to continue up to the age of 65 years without restriction and
are not precluded from holding administrative posts. It was also urged
that certain doctors within CHS have allegedly been allowed to
continue in administrative positions even after attaining the age of 62
years. Such differential treatment, it was submitted, creates a class
within a class and is constitutionally impermissible.
16.7 Additionally, it was contended that the impugned action
adversely affects their right to be considered for promotion. It was
submitted that while preparing the common seniority list of Senior
Administrative Grade (SAG) doctors released vide Office
Memorandum dated 29.06.2019 for the purpose of promotion to
Higher Administrative Grade (HAG), the names of doctors who had
attained the age of 62 years were excluded despite their continued
service up to 65 years. Consequently, juniors were considered and
promoted, thereby ignoring seniors solely on the ground of age.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 10 of 31
Reliance in this regard is placed upon State of M.P. v. Shardul
4
Singh .
16.8 It is the specific case of the Petitioners that enhancement of the
age of superannuation to 65 years under FR 56(bb), with effect from
31.05.2016, created a vested right to continue in service up to that age,
along with the status, powers and privileges attached to the post. The
subsequent Notifications dated 05.01.2018 and 11.08.2018, as well as
the Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2018, are alleged to have
curtailed this vested right and are therefore arbitrary, illegal and
unconstitutional.
16.9 Lastly, reliance was placed upon Federation of Railway
5
Officers Association v. Union of India ; and Vasavi Engineering
6
College Parents Association v. State of Telangana , to contend that
this Court is empowered to judicially review arbitrary policy decisions
lacking reasonable nexus.
17. Contentions of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 [Union of India
through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DoPT)]:
17.1 Per contra , learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, at the
outset, submitted that the present Writ Petitions have been rendered
infructuous. It was contended that all the Petitioners have already
retired from service upon attaining the age of 62 years and, therefore,
no effective writ could now be issued granting the reliefs as prayed
for.
4
(1970) 1 SCC 108
5
(2003) 4 SCC 289
6
(2019) 7 SCC 172
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 11 of 31
17.2 It was submitted that the CHS is a statutory service governed by
the Central Health Service Rules, 2014 as amended by the Central
Health Service (Amendment) Rules, 2019, and comprises four sub-
cadres, namely, Teaching, Non-Teaching, Public Health and General
Duty Medical Officer (GDMO). Prior to 31.05.2016, the age of
superannuation for persons holding posts in various sub-cadres of
CHS was 62 years, except for the GDMO sub-cadre where it was 60
years. Specialists included in the Teaching sub-cadre who were
engaged in teaching activities and not occupying administrative
positions were permitted to continue up to 65 years of age. Specialists
of the Teaching sub-cadre who were occupying administrative
positions had the option to hold teaching positions, in case they
desired to continue up to the age of 65 years.
17.3 It was submitted that with a view to utilize the experience of
doctors belonging to various sub-cadres of CHS in the fields of
teaching, patient care and public health, a proposal was mooted by the
Department of Health and Family Welfare on 31.05.2016 to enhance
the age of superannuation of Non-Teaching Specialists, Public Health
Specialists and GDMOs to 65 years with effect from 31.05.2016.
Simultaneously, it was proposed that the Department of Health and
Family Welfare be empowered to take an appropriate decision in
respect of the age for holding charge of administrative positions as per
functional requirements. The proposal was approved by the competent
authority on 31.05.2016 and was thereafter ratified by the Union
Cabinet on 15.06.2016.
17.4 Pursuant to the said approval, clause (bb) was inserted in FR 56
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 12 of 31
vide Notification dated 31.05.2016 enhancing the age of
superannuation in respect of GDMOs and Specialists included in the
Teaching, Non-Teaching and Public Health sub-cadres of CHS to 65
years. It was emphasized that the Cabinet had specifically empowered
the Ministry to take an appropriate decision with respect to the age for
holding administrative charge.
17.5 In exercise of the aforesaid authority, the Department of Health
and Family Welfare issued an Office Memorandum dated 19.07.2016
taking a policy decision that officers of various sub-cadres of CHS
should not hold administrative posts after attaining the age of 62
years. Subsequently, to give statutory effect to the said policy
decision, the Fundamental (First/Second) Amendment Rules were
notified vide Notification dated 22.03.2017, thereby providing
statutory flavour to the decision that officers of the various sub-cadres
of CHS should not hold administrative posts after attaining the age of
62 years.
17.6 It is further submitted that the aforesaid Notification dated
22.03.2017 was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 494/2017
captioned Dr. Jagdish Prasad ( supra ). The Tribunal granted certain
relief to the applicant therein by judgment dated 05.04.2018. The said
decision was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4727/2018
captioned Union of India v. Dr. Jagdish Prasad , wherein this Court,
by order dated 30.07.2018, stayed the operation of the Tribunal‟s
judgment. It is stated that the said writ petition was ultimately
disposed of by this Court on 08.01.2020 without granting any relief to
Dr. Jagdish Prasad.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 13 of 31
17.7 It was submitted that thereafter FR 56(bb) was further amended
vide Notification dated 11.08.2018. By virtue of the said amendment,
the age of superannuation in respect of doctors belonging to CHS was
stipulated as 62 years, unless they exercised an option in the
prescribed format for posting to Teaching, Clinical, Patient Care,
Implementation of Health Programmes, Public Health Programmes
and functions including advisory and consultancy, depending upon
their expertise and experience. The amendment further provided that
doctors who had attained or were to attain the age of 62 years and
failed to exercise such option would superannuate upon attaining the
age of 62 years. It was submitted that, as per the records, almost all
doctors exercised the option to continue beyond the age of 62 years on
the terms and conditions stipulated in the Notification dated
11.08.2018.
17.8 It was contended that the Petitioners have no vested right to
continue in service beyond the age of 62 years. It was submitted that
the right to continue up to 65 years was made available only by virtue
of the Notification dated 31.05.2016 and is subject to the conditions
attached thereto and to subsequent amendments. Such a right, it was
urged, cannot be treated as an indefeasible or vested right and can be
amended or modified in accordance with law. The Petitioners, it was
contended, cannot claim the benefit of extended tenure without
complying with the attendant conditions.
17.9 It was further submitted that the policy underlying the
impugned amendment is rational and seeks to utilize the experience of
senior doctors in the areas of teaching, clinical work, patient care and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 14 of 31
public health, rather than in administrative assignments. The
amendment being founded on a policy decision, its wisdom cannot be
subjected to judicial review unless it is shown to be manifestly
arbitrary or violative of constitutional or statutory provisions.
18. Contentions of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 [Deen Dayal
Upadhyay Hospital and the Department of Health and Family
Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi]:
18.1 Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 broadly adopted
the submissions advanced on behalf of the Union of India. It was
reiterated that CHS is a statutory service comprising four sub-cadres
and that prior to 31.05.2016, the age of superannuation was 62 years
(60 years in the case of GDMOs), except for teaching specialists not
holding administrative posts who could continue up to 65 years.
18.2 It was submitted that the decision that officers of various sub-
cadres of CHS should not hold administrative posts after attaining the
age of 62 years was taken as a matter of policy pursuant to Cabinet
approval empowering the Ministry to decide the age for holding
administrative charge as per functional requirements. The subsequent
amendments to FR 56(bb) merely gave statutory effect to such policy
decision.
18.3 It was asserted that neither the right to continue beyond 62
years nor the right to hold an administrative position beyond that age
is a vested right or a condition of service that cannot be altered. The
enhancement of age up to 65 years is itself subject to conditions and
the Petitioners cannot insist upon continuation in administrative posts
as a matter of right.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 15 of 31
18.4. In support of the limited scope of judicial review in matters of
policy, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court
7
in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain ; Union of
8 9
India v. M. Selvakumar ; Rachna v. Union of India ; and NOIDA v.
10
B.D. Singhal . It was submitted that the enhancement of age of
superannuation and the conditions subject to which such enhancement
is granted fall squarely within the realm of policy, and this Court
ought not to trench upon the domain of the executive unless the policy
is shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
19. The following questions arise for consideration in the present
batch of Writ Petitions:
I. Whether, after the substitution of Rule 56(bb) of the
Fundamental Rules vide Notification dated 11.08.2018, the age of
superannuation of doctors belonging to the CHS and other specified
services is 62 years, with an enabling provision for continuation up to
65 years subject to conditions, or whether 65 years constitutes the
unconditional age of superannuation;
II. Whether the stipulation that continuation in service beyond the
age of 62 years shall be confined to teaching, clinical, patient care,
implementation of health programmes, public health functions and
advisory or consultancy roles amounts to divestment of rank or
reduction in status;
7
(2007) 4 SCC 737
8
(2017) 3 SCC 504
9
(2021) 5 SCC 638
10
Civil Appeal No. 2310 of 2021, decided on 15.07.2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 16 of 31
III. Whether the Petitioners possess a vested or indefeasible right to
continue in service up to the age of 65 years along with the right to
hold administrative posts;
IV. Whether the Notifications dated 05.01.2018 and 11.08.2018,
and the consequential Office Memorandum dated 13.08.2018
prescribing an option format, suffer from lack of authority or travel
beyond the scope of the enabling provision;
V. Whether the impugned amendment results in hostile
discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India; and
VI. Whether the exclusion of doctors who have attained the age of
62 years from consideration for further promotion to higher
administrative grades is legally sustainable.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
20. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record. The
aforesaid questions are interrelated and arise out of the same statutory
framework. They are, therefore, being examined together in the
following analysis.
20A. Though learned counsel for the Union of India contended that
the Petitions have been rendered infructuous as the Petitioners have
already superannuated, this objection cannot be accepted. The
Petitioners have challenged the validity and interpretation of a
statutory rule and seek consequential benefits. The issue raised is not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 17 of 31
rendered academic merely because Petitioners have retired,
particularly when service benefits and promotional consequences are
asserted.
I. Nature and Effect of the Amendment to Rule 56(bb):
21. The foundational issue that falls for determination is the true
import of Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules as substituted by
Notification dated 11.08.2018. The Petitioners‟ challenge proceeds on
the premise that the earlier Notification dated 31.05.2016 enhanced
the age of superannuation of doctors belonging to the Central Health
Service to 65 years without qualification, and that any subsequent
restriction disentitling them from holding administrative posts beyond
the age of 62 years amounts to curtailment of that right.
22. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant
portion of the Amendment introduced vide Notification dated
11.08.2018, which reads as under:
2. “……………..In the Fundamental Rules, 1922, in rule 56, for
clause (bb). the following shall be substituted, namely:-
"(bb) (i) The age of superannuation in respect of the doctors
belonging to-
(i) Central Health Service;
(ii) Indian Railways Medical Service;
(iii) AYUSH and working under the Ministry of AYUSH;
(iv) Civilian doctors under the Directorate General of Armed
Forces Medical Service;
(v) Medical Officers of the Indian Ordnance Factories Health
Service;
(vi) Dental Doctors under the Department of Health and Family
Welfare;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 18 of 31
(vii) Dental doctors under the Ministry of Railways; and
(viii) General Duty Medical Officers, Specialist Grade doctors and
Teaching Medical Faculty working in Bhopal Memorial Hospital and
Research Centre,
shall be sixty-two years unless they exercise the option of posting to
Teaching, Clinical, Patient Care, Implementation of Health
programmes; Public Health programmes and functions including
advisory and consultancy depending on their expertise and
experience, as decided by the competent authority in the concerned
Ministry or Department from time to time, in case they desire to
continue in their service upto the age of sixty-five years:
Provided that the age of superannuation in respect of the doctors
belonging to the General Duty Medical Officers sub-cadre of Central
Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles and Specialist Medical officers
of Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifles shall be sixty-five
years.
(ii) The serving doctors belonging to the services referred to in sub-
clause (i) who have either already attained the age of sixty-two years
or attaining the age of sixty-two years within six months from the date
of publication of these amendment rules in the Official Gazette, may
exercise their option in regard to their posting to Teaching, Clinical,
Patient Care, Implementation of Health programmes, Public Health
programmes and functions including advisory and consultancy as
specified in sub-clause (i), within a period of thirty days from the date
of the commencement of the Fundamental (Second Amendment) Rules,
2018.
(iii) The serving doctors who fail to exercise the option in regard to
their posting to Teaching, Clinical Patient Care, Implementation of
Health programmes, Public Health programmes and functions
including advisory and consultancy as specified in sub-clause i),
within the period specified in sub-clause (ii), shall be superannuated
from their service on attaining the age of sixty-two years or on expiry
of a period of thirty days from the date of the commencement of the
Fundamental (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018, whichever is later.
……….”
23. The structure of the amended rule is clear. Superannuation at
the age of 62 years is the norm. Continuation beyond that age is not
automatic or unconditional; it is contingent upon (i) the exercise of an
option within the prescribed time, and (ii) acceptance of posting in the
functional domains specified in the rule. The rule does not provide for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 19 of 31
continuation on administrative posts beyond the age of 62 years. On
the contrary, the categories of duties enumerated in the provision
indicate the nature of assignments to which such continuation is
confined.
24. The amendment further provides that doctors who fail to
exercise the option within the stipulated period shall superannuate
upon attaining the age of 62 years. The prescription of an option and
the consequences attached thereto reinforce the conclusion that
continuation beyond 62 years is in the nature of an enabling provision,
subject to conditions, and not an automatic extension of service.
25. When the language of a statutory rule is clear and unambiguous,
the Court must give effect to its plain meaning. The substituted Rule
56(bb), read as a whole, leaves little room for doubt that the age of
superannuation remains 62 years and that continuation up to 65 years
is conditional and confined to specified functional roles. The Tribunal,
in the Impugned Order, has interpreted the provision in this manner
and held that continuation beyond 62 years is optional and not a
matter of right. Upon an independent consideration of the rule, this
Court finds no infirmity in that interpretation.
II. Whether Exclusion from Administrative Posts Amounts to
Reduction in Rank or Divestment of Status?
26. The next limb of the Petitioners‟ challenge is that the stipulation
confining continuation beyond the age of 62 years to teaching,
clinical, patient care, public health and advisory functions has the
effect of divesting them of administrative responsibilities and thereby
amounts to reduction in rank or status.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 20 of 31
27. This contention proceeds on the assumption that holding an
administrative post constitutes an immutable component of the
Petitioners‟ service conditions and that cessation of such assignment,
upon attaining the age of 62 years, necessarily entails a civil
consequence in the nature of reduction in rank. The argument,
however, cannot be accepted in the statutory context in which the
amended Rule 56(bb) operates.
28. It is not in dispute that the amended rule prescribes
superannuation at the age of 62 years as the norm. Continuation up to
65 years is made permissible only upon exercise of an option and
subject to the nature of duties specified therein. Once the rule itself
confines such extended tenure to particular functional domains,
continuation in administrative assignments beyond the age of 62 years
stands excluded by necessary implication.
29. It is not shown that administrative charge constitutes a separate
cadre distinct from the substantive post held by the concerned doctors.
The amended rule does not alter the substantive rank held by the
concerned doctors. It merely regulates the nature of duties to be
discharged during the period of extended tenure beyond the prescribed
age of superannuation. The distinction between rank and assignment is
well recognised in service jurisprudence. A change in duties,
consistent with the governing rule, does not ipso facto amount to
reduction in rank.
30. It is also material to note that the Petitioners, upon attaining the
age of 62 years, have no right to continue in service unless they opt
for the extended tenure contemplated under the rule. If continuation
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 21 of 31
itself is conditional and not automatic, the terms subject to which such
continuation is granted cannot be characterised as punitive or as
amounting to demotion.
31. The essence of reduction in rank lies in lowering an employee
in the hierarchy of service or in diminishing the substantive status
attached to the post. The amended Rule 56(bb) does not provide for
reversion to a lower cadre, reduction in pay, or alteration of
substantive designation. It only stipulates that the extended period of
service, beyond the normal age of superannuation, shall be devoted to
specified professional functions rather than administrative
assignments.
32. Viewed thus, the restriction on holding administrative posts
after attaining the age of 62 years does not constitute reduction in
rank. It is a regulatory condition attached to an optional extension of
service and forms part of the statutory framework governing such
continuation.
33. In the allied context of continuation beyond the normal age of
superannuation, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr. Kamla
11
Singh v. State of Haryana upheld a policy whereby,
notwithstanding the normal retirement age of 58 years under the
governing service rules, doctors were permitted to continue up to 65
years subject to the condition that, upon attaining the age of 58 years,
they would cease to hold administrative posts and would be assigned
only clinical duties. The challenge to the said stipulation was repelled,
the Court holding that the extension beyond the prescribed age was
11
CWP No. 24557 of 2016, decided on 08.05.2019
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 22 of 31
structured in public interest and that no vested right existed to insist
upon continuation in administrative assignments. The decision
illustrates that continuation beyond the normal age of superannuation
may validly be made subject to functional limitations flowing from a
statutory or authorised policy framework.
III. Whether the Petitioners Possess a Vested or Indefeasible Right
to Continue up to 65 Years with Administrative Charge?
34. The central plank of the Petitioners‟ case is that the Notification
dated 31.05.2016 created a vested and indefeasible right to continue in
service up to the age of 65 years, along with all incidents of the post,
including administrative charge. According to them, the subsequent
amendments dilute this right and are therefore impermissible.
35. This contention requires careful examination of the nature of
the right, if any, that accrued under the Notification dated 31.05.2016.
The power to prescribe the age of superannuation flows from the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rules framed
thereunder are subject to amendment, modification or substitution in
accordance with law.
36. It is well settled that a Government servant has no vested right
in the age of superannuation as such. The age of retirement is a
condition of service which may be altered by the competent rule-
making authority, subject to constitutional limitations. An
enhancement of the age of superannuation, introduced in public
interest, does not create an indefeasible right immune from subsequent
statutory modification.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 23 of 31
37. In the present case, even assuming that the Notification dated
31.05.2016 enhanced the age of superannuation to 65 years, the same
was effected by amendment of Rule 56(bb) in exercise of rule-making
power under Article 309. The substituted Rule 56(bb), notified on
11.08.2018, represents a valid exercise of the same power. Once the
rule stands amended, the rights and obligations of the Petitioners must
be governed by the rule as it exists.
38. The Petitioners cannot claim a vested right in the continuance
of a particular statutory regime. Nor can they assert that the executive
is precluded from refining or restructuring service conditions in light
of administrative exigencies or policy considerations, so long as such
action is taken within the bounds of constitutional and statutory
authority.
39. In the present case, the amended rule does not retrospectively
curtail any accrued benefit. It regulates the conditions subject to which
continuation beyond 62 years may be availed. The Petitioners,
therefore, cannot successfully contend that an indefeasible right to
continue up to 65 years with administrative charge stood crystallised
in their favour.
IV. Challenge on the Ground of Lack of Authority / Excess of
Delegated Power:
40. The Petitioners have also sought to contend that the stipulation
confining continuation beyond the age of 62 years to teaching,
clinical, patient care, public health and advisory functions travels
beyond the scope of the enabling power under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and amounts to an impermissible alteration of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 24 of 31
service conditions.
41. The submission does not merit acceptance. The proviso to
Article 309 confers upon the competent authority the power to frame
rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons
serving in connection with the affairs of the Union. The expression
“conditions of service” has consistently been understood to include
matters relating to tenure, superannuation, duties, responsibilities and
assignments attached to a post.
42. The amended Rule 56(bb), as notified on 11.08.2018, forms
part of the Fundamental Rules framed in exercise of the said
constitutional power. The stipulation that continuation beyond 62
years shall be confined to specified functional domains is embedded in
the rule itself. It is not an executive instruction dehors the statutory
framework. Once the rule validly prescribes the nature of duties
during extended tenure, the same cannot be characterised as an act in
excess of delegated authority. The requirement of Cabinet approval
pertains to internal governmental procedure. Once the rule stands
notified in exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309, its
validity cannot be questioned on the ground of alleged absence of
Cabinet approval, unless such approval is mandated by statute.
43. It is also pertinent that the rule does not operate selectively or
arbitrarily against the Petitioners. The prescription applies uniformly
to all doctors falling within the categories enumerated therein, save
and except those expressly carved out by the proviso. The
classification, therefore, flows directly from the statutory text and not
from any discretionary or ad hoc administrative action. The stipulation
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 25 of 31
regarding the nature of duties during extended tenure flows directly
from the statutory text of Rule 56(bb) itself. The prescribed option
form merely reflects and operationalises the statutory condition and
does not introduce any independent restriction. The reliance placed
upon Tulsyan NEC Ltd. ( supra ) and St. John’s Teachers Training
Institute ( supra ) is misplaced, inasmuch as the restriction in the
present case emanates from the statutory text of Rule 56(bb) itself and
not from any executive instruction seeking to override or supplement
the rule.
44. In the absence of any demonstrated constitutional infirmity, the
Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the rule-making
authority in matters of policy concerning utilisation of medical
personnel in public service. The scope of judicial review in such
matters is limited to examining legality, not wisdom.
V. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 16:
45. The Petitioners have further urged that the amended framework
results in hostile discrimination inasmuch as certain categories of
doctors are permitted to continue up to 65 years without restriction,
while others are confined to specified roles.
46. The contention overlooks the plain structure of the rule. The
proviso to clause (bb) expressly stipulates that the age of
superannuation in respect of doctors belonging to the General Duty
Medical Officers sub-cadre of Central Armed Police Forces and
Assam Rifles, and Specialist Medical Officers of such Forces, shall be
sixty-five years. This constitutes a distinct class carved out by the rule
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 26 of 31
itself.
47. It is trite that Article 14 does not forbid reasonable
classification. The differentiation must be founded on an intelligible
differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. The rule-making authority, in its wisdom, has treated
doctors serving in specified uniformed forces as a separate category.
No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that
such classification is manifestly arbitrary or devoid of rational basis.
48. Equally, the Petitioners cannot invoke Article 16 to claim a
right to continue in administrative assignments beyond the age
prescribed by the governing rule. Equality of opportunity in matters of
public employment does not extend to claiming continuation in
service contrary to statutory prescription. Mere allegation of isolated
deviations, even if assumed, cannot render the statutory rule
unconstitutional. An illegality, if any, cannot be perpetuated on the
ground of parity.
49. The amended Rule 56(bb) operates prospectively and uniformly
within each identified category. In the absence of arbitrariness or
hostile discrimination, no violation of Articles 14 or 16 is made out.
VI. Issue Relating to Promotion, Seniority and Stagnation:
50. An ancillary argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioners is
that exclusion from administrative posts after attaining the age of 62
years adversely affects their promotional prospects and seniority
position.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 27 of 31
51. This submission fails to appreciate the temporal context of the
rule. Where the governing rule treats 62 years as the normal age of
superannuation and permits continuation beyond that age only for
specified purposes, promotional progression within the administrative
hierarchy cannot be claimed as of right during such conditional
extended tenure. Once superannuation at 62 years is the norm under
the rule, no question of further promotional entitlement as of right
arises beyond that stage. The decision in Shardul Singh ( supra ) dealt
with denial of consideration within the normal tenure of service and
has no application where continuation itself beyond 62 years is
conditional under the governing rule.
52. Continuation up to 65 years is not an extension of the normal
tenure in the same sense as service prior to superannuation. It is a
conditional retention in service for specified purposes. The rule does
not envisage promotional advancement during such extended tenure in
administrative hierarchy. The absence of promotional avenues during
a conditional extension cannot be equated with deprivation of a vested
promotional right.
53. On the contrary, as noticed by the Tribunal, the restriction on
holding administrative posts beyond 62 years subserves the objective
of preventing stagnation and enabling progression within the cadre.
The policy choice underlying the amendment cannot be said to be
irrational or unconstitutional. Exclusion of officers who had attained
the age of 62 years from consideration in the common seniority list for
promotion to HAG is consistent with the statutory framework which
treats 62 years as the normal age of superannuation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 28 of 31
VII. Scope of Judicial Review and Final Determination:
54. Before parting, it is necessary to reiterate that the present batch
of Petitions arises from a challenge to a statutory rule framed in
exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
of India and to the order of the Tribunal upholding the same. The
scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution, particularly in matters involving policy choices
reflected in statutory service rules, is circumscribed.
55. The Court does not sit in appeal over the wisdom of the rule-
making authority. Unless a rule is shown to be manifestly arbitrary,
discriminatory, ultra vires the parent power, or violative of a
constitutional or statutory provision, judicial review does not extend to
substituting the Court‟s perception of desirability for that of the
competent authority. The judgments in Federation of Railway
Officers Association ( supra ) and Vasavi Engineering College
Parents Association ( supra ) merely reiterate the limited scope of
judicial review over policy decisions. The Impugned Rule does not
suffer from manifest arbitrariness.
56. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the amended Rule
56(bb), introduced vide Notification dated 11.08.2018, (i) retains the
age of superannuation at 62 years as the norm; (ii) provides an
enabling and conditional continuation up to 65 years in specified
functional domains; and (iii) does not result in reduction of rank,
deprivation of accrued benefits, or hostile discrimination within the
meaning of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 29 of 31
57. The contention that the earlier Notification dated 31.05.2016
created an absolute and indefeasible right to continue in service up to
the age of 65 years, irrespective of the nature of duties to be assigned,
has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. We find no infirmity, factual
or legal, in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in the Impugned
Order dated 14.08.2019.
58. The distinction drawn by the amended rule between
administrative assignments and teaching/clinical/public health
functions during the extended period of service cannot be said to be
arbitrary or constitutionally impermissible. The rule operates
uniformly within the identified categories and falls squarely within the
competence of the rule-making authority.
59. The authorities relied upon by the Petitioners, namely Tulsyan
NEC Ltd. ( supra ), St. John’s Teachers Training Institute ( supra ),
Shardul Singh ( supra ), Federation of Railway Officers Association
( supra ), and Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association
( supra ), do not advance their case. The said decisions reiterate settled
principles relating to:
i. supremacy of statutory rules over executive instructions,
ii. the right to be considered for promotion during the normal
tenure of service, and
iii. the scope of judicial review over policy decisions
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned amendment
flows directly from the statutory text of Rule 56(bb), does not deny
any vested promotional right within the normal tenure, and does not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 30 of 31
suffer from manifest arbitrariness. The precedents relied upon are,
therefore, distinguishable.
60. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no ground is made out for interference with
the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal. The challenge to the
validity of the Notification dated 11.08.2018, insofar as it substitutes
clause (bb) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, is devoid of merit.
CONCLUSION:
61. In view of the aforegoing, the present Petitions are dismissed.
All pending applications also stand closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2026
jai/pal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:22:34
W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & connected matters Page 31 of 31