Courts cannot mandate enhancement of superannuation age as it constitutes an executive policy decision.

The Petitioner, a Civilian Medical Officer in the General Reserve Engineering Force/Border Roads Organisation ("GREF/BRO"), sought to increase his superannuation age from 60 to 65 years

He cited Department of Personnel Training (DoPT) notifications from 2016 and 2018 which had enhanced the retirement age for doctors in various other Central Government services, including the Central Health Service and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), to 65 years

The Ministry of Defence, following a prior court direction, issued a speaking order on 03.07.2023 rejecting the petitioner's request.

The rejection was based on the operational requirement for Medical Officers to serve in high-altitude/remote areas where clinical fitness is critical, and the concern that increasing the age would stagnate promotional avenues for younger officers

1. Whether the refusal of the respondents to enhance the superannuation age of Doctors/Medical Officers in GREF/BRO from 60 to 65 years is arbitrary or discriminatory in comparison to other Central Government cadres.

2. Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to issue a mandamus directing the government to alter a policy decision regarding the age of retirement.

Statement identifying a key statute, principle, or precedent: The court primarily relied on the principle that the age of superannuation is a policy matter governed by statutory rules and executive domain

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: Case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences Anr. v. Bikartan Das Ors. (2023), which held that courts should not fix superannuation ages or grant interim service extensions based on perceived devotion to duty, as such matters are governed by specific service conditions

The court also distinguished Dev Sharma v. Indo Tibetan Border Police (2019), noting that while that case corrected an internal inconsistency within CAPF ranks, it did not mandate a universal retirement age across different cadres

The Court observed that while most Central Government medical cadres have had their retirement age increased to 65, GREF/BRO constitutes a distinct cadre with unique operational requirements

The respondents provided specific justifications for the 60-year limit: the geographical and environmental constraints of BRO projects (High Altitude Areas) where officers over 56 are generally deemed unfit for posting, and the potential for promotional stagnation

Although the Petitioner contested the factual accuracy of these deployment constraints, the Court held that these reasons were not "ex facie arbitrary or perverse"

The Court reasoned that it cannot substitute its judgment for that of the executive in policy matters or "tread into matters of policy" regarding service conditions, as the executive is presumed to have weighed the pros and cons of such extensions

The Court found no merit in the petition, concluding that the respondents' refusal to enhance the age was based on valid administrative and operational considerations

The writ petition was dismissed