Service extension to sixty-five years is conditional upon vacating administrative posts at age sixty-two.

The Applicant, a senior Radiology Specialist and Head of Department (HOD) at RML Hospital, challenged the Guidelines dated 13.09.2024 and Office Memorandum (OM) dated 13.08.2018, which impose a 62-year age limit for continuing as or being re-appointed as HOD.

While a Notification dated 11.08.2018 issued under Article 309 permitted doctors in clinical, teaching, and public health roles to serve until 65 years, the Respondents restricted administrative roles—including HOD positions—to the age of 62.

The Applicant contended that an HOD in a clinical super-specialty predominantly performs clinical and teaching functions rather than purely administrative ones and should thus be allowed to continue until 65.

The Respondents maintained that the restriction is a policy decision aimed at preventing cadre stagnation.

1. Whether the Respondents can legally curtail the tenure of a Head of Department to 62 years through executive guidelines and OMs despite the general extension of service to 65 years for clinical doctors.

2. Whether the post of HOD in a clinical specialty constitutes an "administrative post" as contemplated under the amended Fundamental Rule 56(bb).

The Court primarily applied Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(bb), as amended on 11.08.2018, which establishes that while Central Health Service (CHS) doctors may serve until 65, continuation beyond 62 is strictly confined to clinical, patient care, teaching, and advisory roles, excluding administrative posts.

It further relied on the CHS Rules, 2014 (amended on 28.06.2019), which specifically enumerate HODs of specialties as administrative positions.

The Tribunal followed the binding precedent of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2026), which held that service beyond 62 is a conditional retention for specified purposes and not an automatic extension of the normal tenure.

The Tribunal held that the case was squarely covered by the Delhi High Court's ruling in Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain, which clarified that the statutory age of superannuation remains 62, and any service up to 65 is an "enabling provision" subject to functional conditions.

The Court reasoned that the classification of HOD as an administrative post is legally valid under the CHS Rules and that such a restriction prevents stagnation in the hierarchy by allowing junior officers to progress.

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's reliance on NMC TEQ Regulations, noting that executive OMs and statutory rules under Article 309 (like FR 56(bb)) govern service conditions.

It was further observed that the OM dated 13.08.2018 merely operationalized the statutory mandate of the amended FR 56(bb), and since the Applicant could not show she was denied the option to serve in a clinical capacity (sans administrative charge), the procedural framework remained valid and uniformly applicable.

The Court held that the Applicant has no vested right to hold the administrative post of HOD beyond 62 years.

While the Applicant may serve until 65 in a clinical or teaching capacity, she must relinquish the administrative charge of HOD upon reaching 62, as per the statutory framework of FR 56(bb) and the CHS Rules.