Medical officers with 20 years of clinical service are entitled to serve until age 65.

The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer on 1 October 2003, regularised in that post on 6 October 2007, and promoted to Chief Block Medical Officer on 10 February 2023.

The Court recorded that he had completed 20 years of clinical service.

By order dated 4 June 2026, the State superannuated him with effect from 30 June 2024. He sought to have that order quashed and to be permitted to continue in service until age 65, with consequential retirement benefits.

Relying on an earlier decision in Dr. Bhure Singh Saitya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, the petitioner argued that the same controversy had already been resolved in favour of a medical officer with 20 years of clinical service.

The State opposed the petition but could not distinguish the petitioner’s case from that precedent.

Whether the petitioner, having completed 20 years of clinical service and been promoted to Chief Block Medical Officer, was entitled to continue in service until age 65.

Whether the order superannuating the petitioner with effect from 30 June 2024 was liable to be quashed.

The Court applied its earlier ruling in Dr. Bhure Singh Saitya, which relied on the interpretation of Fundamental Rule 56, as amended by the Madhya Pradesh amendment concerning members of the Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service.

As explained in Kanti Lal Sahu & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, the relevant provision covered medical officers and specialists, including qualifying members promoted or appointed to administrative posts who had served as Medical Officer or Specialist for at least 20 years and retained a lien in the concerned service.

The earlier ruling also considered the State’s notifications concerning the retirement age of medical officers and the 20-year clinical-service requirement.

The Court found the petitioner’s case identical to Dr. Bhure Singh Saitya: he had initially served as a Medical Officer, was later promoted to Chief Block Medical Officer, and had completed 20 years of clinical service.

The State was unable to distinguish the earlier ruling. Applying that decision mutatis mutandis, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to continue until age 65 and that the impugned superannuation order could not stand insofar as it related to him.

It permitted the petitioner to continue in service until age 65 and quashed the order dated 4 June 2026 insofar as it related to him.

Any pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.