DR. JAGDISH SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:31611
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 7510 of 2026
----------
Dr. Jagdish Singh aged about 65 years son of Late Bhavikshan Singh,
resident of Chandauli, P.O. Chandauli, P.S. Waini, District Samastipur
(Bihar)-848115, presently posted as In-Charge District AYUSH Medical
Officer, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar (Jharkhand) -
814112.
………. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education
and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and
Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-Cum-Finance,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, Dhurwa, P.O. P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its office
at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Dhurwa,
Ranchi.
6. The Director, AYUSH Directorate, Department of Health, Medical
Education and Welfare, Family Government of Jharkhand, having its
Office Campus, Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.
………. Respondents
---------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP-III
----------
03/ 29.10.2026 Heard the parties.
2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for
the following reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly a writ in the nature commanding upon of mandamus,
the concerned Respondents to enhance the age of superannuation
of the petitioner who is Ayurvedic, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani,
Siddha and Homeopathic (hereinafter 'AYUSH') referred as Doctor
from 65 to 67 years in the light of the resolution passed vide Memo
No.1109 (3) dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure-6) in pursuance of the
1

2026:JHHC:31611
order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North Delhi
Municipal Corporation Versus Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and
others, reported in (2021) 17 SCC 642.

(ii)For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon
the concerned respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his
duties till he completes the age of 67 years who is AYUSH Doctor
in light of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S)
No.2379 of 2025.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though law has been
settled with regard to retirement age of AYUSH doctors which has
been extended from 65 years to 67 years, however, this petitioner
has been denied the said benefit. He submits that at present the
petitioner is working and going to superannuated on 31.10.2026, as
such, at this stage itself this Court may direct the respondents not
to superannuate this petitioner at the age of 65 years; rather, his
retirement age should be when he attains the age of 67 years.
Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards
Annexure-8 and submits that issue has already been decided by
this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2379 of 2025; as such, similar benefits
may be granted to this petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that though
instruction has not been received but he could not dispute the fact
that the issue involved in W.P.(S). No. 2379 of 2025 and in the
instant case, are same and similar.
5. Having regard to the above and after going through the
documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner is an
AYUSH doctor and he is made to retire on 31.10.2026 at the age of
65 years. However, in the case of W.P.(S). No. 2379 of 2025, it has
been held by this Court that the age of retirement of AYUSH
doctors is extended from 65 years to 67 years on the ground that
the retirement age of Allopathic doctor has been extended from 65
years to 67 years.

6. For brevity, paras-5 to 9 of order passed in W.P.(S). No. 2379 of
2025 is extracted herein below:
2

2026:JHHC:31611

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents available on record and the averments made in
the respective affidavits, it appears that this court in W.P.(S) No. 209 of
2021 with analogous cases have dealt with these issues in detail. For
brevity para 19 to 23 is quoted hereinbelow: -
“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:
“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
3

2026:JHHC:31611
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.”
6. After going through the aforesaid judgment, the only difference is
factual in nature, inasmuch as, in the said case the Petitioners came for
enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years and in the instant case
now they have pleaded for extension of age from 65 to 67 years on the
ground that the retirement age of Allopathy Doctors has been extended
from 65 to 67 years.
It further appears that the judgment relied upon the by the
Respondents i.e. Dr. P.P. Bhatt (supra), it appears that the same is not
applicable in the instant case which would be evident from the very recital
of para 20 of the said judgment. The fact in case of Dr. P.P. Bhatt (Supra)
was with regard to pay fixation and the pay scale etc. and the same has
been deliberated by the Hon’ble Apex court in para 20. For brevity, para
20 is quoted hereinbelow: -
“20. In any case, the question of age of retirement stands on a
different footing from the service conditions relating to pay and
allowances and revision of pay. Therefore, we do not think that the
issue raised in these appeals can be said to be covered by the
decision in Ram Naresh Sharma [North Delhi Municipal Corpn. v.
Ram Naresh Sharma, (2021) 17 SCC 642].”
7. Interestingly, on the last occasion when this Court has directed to
4

2026:JHHC:31611
enhance the age of superannuation of Ayush Doctors from 60 to 65 years
as that of Allopathy Doctors; the Government has implemented by
respective notifications and at present the retirement age of AYUSH
Doctor is 65 years. As aforesaid, the grievance of the Petitioners is now
for extension of retirement age from 65 to 67 years on the same and
similar reason that the style of treatment of both the Doctors might be
different but both are treating their patients for ultimate relief. As
aforesaid, in the case of Dr. R. Naresh (supra) it has been held that the
only difference between the AYUSH Doctors and the CHS Doctors are that
the former is using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani,
etc. and later are using Allopathy for treating their patients.
8. This Court fails to understand, when on the earlier occasion on the
same and similar grounds; the superannuation age of Ayush Doctor has
been extended from 60 to 65 years as that of Allopathy Doctor, then there
is no reason why the extension of 2 years which has been granted to
Allopathy Doctor has not been extended to Ayush Doctors.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ application
stands allowed and the Respondent authorities are directed to accept the
claim of the Petitioner and issue necessary notification by extending the
retirement age of the AYUSH Doctors from 65 to 67 years. Necessary
consequential benefits be accordingly extended to them as early as
possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this order. Pending I.As., if any, is also
closed.”
7. Having regard to the above, the instant writ application is
allowed. The respondents are directed not to superannuate this
petitioner at the age of 65 years, which he is going to attain on
31.10.2026, and allow him to perform his duties till he completes
the age of 67 years.
8. As a result, this writ petition stands allowed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
th
29 October, 2026
Kunal/-
Uploaded on 30.10.2026
5