Jharkhand HC Lets AYUSH Doctor Due To Retire At 65 Serve Until 67, Citing Earlier Parity Ruling

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner, an AYUSH doctor, was entitled to continue in service until age 67 rather than superannuating at age 65.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner at age 65 on 31 October 2026.

It also directed

He was to be permitted to continue performing his duties until completing age 67.

01Facts

The petitioner, an AYUSH doctor serving as In-Charge District AYUSH Medical Officer, Deoghar, was due to superannuate at age 65 on 31 October 2026.

p. 2

He sought an extension of the retirement age to 67, relying on the extension granted to Allopathic doctors and the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in W.P.(S) No. 2379 of 2025. The State’s counsel did not dispute that the issues in the two cases were the same and similar, though instructions had not been received.

p. 2 · ¶ 3–4

The Court considered its earlier decision, which directed that AYUSH doctors’ retirement age be raised from 65 to 67.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner, an AYUSH doctor, was entitled to continue in service until age 67 rather than superannuating at age 65.

p. 2 · ¶ 3–5

ii.2. Whether the reasoning in W.P.(S) No. 2379 of 2025 applied to the petitioner’s claim for parity with Allopathic doctors.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 4–6

03Law Applied

The Court relied on North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma, (2021) 17 SCC 642, which held that differentiating between AYUSH and Allopathic doctors in retirement age was discriminatory and unreasonable where both groups perform the same core function of treating patients; the system of medicine used was not an intelligible differentia for that distinction.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6

It also applied its decision in W.P.(S) No. 2379 of 2025, which directed the State to extend AYUSH doctors’ retirement age from 65 to 67 to match that of Allopathic doctors.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 6

04Reasoning

The petitioner was an AYUSH doctor facing retirement at 65, while the State did not dispute that his case raised the same issue decided in W.P.(S) No. 2379 of 2025.

p. 2 · ¶ 3–5

Applying that decision and the parity principle drawn from North Delhi Municipal Corporation, the Court found no basis to treat AYUSH doctors differently from Allopathic doctors for the purpose of the two-year extension.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6