Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Dr Tikam Das Khatri vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 13 October, 2025
1
OA No.636/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.636/2017
Order reserved on: 09.09.2025
Date of order:13.10.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Dr. Teekam Das Khatri S/o Sh. Aasudomal Khatri aged about 60
years R/o 69/324, V.T. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Indresh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Health and
Family welfare (Department of Health), Government of
India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. Director General, Director General of Health Scheme,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New
Delhi
3. Director, National Vector Borne Disease control Programme,
22-Shamnath Marg, New Delhi-110054
4. Senior Regional Director, Regional office for Health and
family welfare, Kendriya Sadan, Block-B, Sector-10,
Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302023.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri N.C. Goyal)
2
OA No.636/2017
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The Applicant had filed the present Original Application upon being aggrieved by the Office Order dated 31.05.2016 of Senior Regional Director, Regional Office for Health and Family Welfare, Rajasthan (R.O.H.&F.W.) i.e. RespondentNo.4, vide which the Applicantwas retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2016 afternoon, from the post of Research Officer(R.O.) (Medical), National Vector Borne Diseases Control Programme (N.V.B.D.C.P.) ; without being considered under the Order dated 31.05.2016 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (M.H.&F.W.) issued for enhancing with immediate effect the age of superannuation of the Specialists of Non-teaching and public health sub cadres and of General Duty Medical Officers (G.D.M.O.) of Central Health Services (C.H.S.) to 65 years.
2. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the relevant matrix of facts in the present case had emerged as follows briefly. The Applicant was initially appointed as ad-hoc R.O.(Medical) in the Malaria Operational Field Research Scheme (M.O.F.R.S.) and had joined on 20.04.1987 at the R.O.H.&F.W., Jaipur. Vide letter dated 29.09.1995, the M.O.F.R.S. was integrated with the National Malaria Eradication Programme (N.M.E.P.) [also, the National Anti-Malaria Programme (N.A.M.P.)] and 156 temporary posts were created under the Directorate of N.M.E.P. and Regional Offices of Ministry of H.&F.W., to be filled up by transfer of the existing incumbents working under M.O.F.R.S.;subsequently, an internal seniority list of ex-M.O.F.R.S. staff integrated with N.A.M.P. had been circulated vide letter dated 15.09.1997. The Director General of Health Service (D.G.H.S.), New Delhi had also written to the Regional Directors at R.O.H.&F.W. to ensure 3 OA No.636/2017 necessary action in pursuance of the Note dated 09.02.2000 of Director (Admn.), D.G.H.S. Headquarters, for regularisation of all ad-hoc appointments before 31.03.2000 ; eventually,vide order dated 29.03.2004 the Applicant inter alia had been appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 29.09.1995 in the post of R.O.(Medical) at R.O.H.&F.W., Jaipur. The Applicant had superannuated from the said post on 31.05.2016 afternoon.
3. After his superannuation, the Applicant had submitted a representation dated 18.06.2016 to the D.G.H.S., the Respondent No.2. Upon the same not being responded to, the Applicant had filed the earlier O.A. No.580/2016 in the first round of related litigationbefore this Tribunal. The same had been decided vide Order dated 21.07.2016, without commenting on the merits of the case - with the direction to the Applicant to prefer a fresh representation to the Respondents attaching a copy of order dated 08.02.2016 passed by Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.82/2012 ; and further directing the Respondents to take a decision on that representation. The Applicant had accordingly submitted his representation dated 27.07.2016. The said representation had been disposed of vide the letter dated 03.11.2016 of the Administrative Officer,N.V.B.D.C.P. conveying in conclusion that the benefit of enhancement of retirement age to 65 years was not applicable for the Applicant. Purportedly, the same had been conveyed to the Sr. Regional Director, R.O.H.&F.W., Jaipur where upon its receipt on 11.11.2016 it was handed over in person to the Applicant, but also sent to him later vide Speed Post on 08.01.2018. Meanwhile, since the Applicant had purportedly not received the said letter dated 03.11.2016 in respect of his representation dated 27.07.2016, he had filed the C.P.No.040/2016 claiming inaction by the Respondents despite this Tribunal's order dated 4 OA No.636/2017 21.07.2016. The said Contempt Petition had been closed by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2018, while noting that Order dated 21.07.2016 passed in O.A No.580/2016 had already been complied with as the representation of the Applicant dated 27.07.2016 had been decided by the Respondents on 08.01.2018.
4. Meanwhile, the Applicant had filed the present O.A. No.636/2017 before this Tribunal on 08.12.2017. Vide the present O.A., the Applicant had prayed for the substantive reliefs inter alia that the superannuation order dated 31.05.2016 be quashed and set aside, to allow the Applicant to work till the age of 65 years as enhanced by the Government of India by treating him to be in C.H.S. ; and that the Applicant be re-inducted into the service till he completed the age of 65 years and be paid salary for the period that he was out of service on account of his retirement at the age of 60 years.
5. It was the case of the Applicantherein that the other doctors who were working in the C.H.S. had not been superannuated on the age of 60 years and their date of superannuation had been enhanced, which was alleged to be discriminatory. It was also his case that he was getting all due benefits similar to a doctor in the C.H.S., yet the purported benefit of the new retirement scheme was not allowed to him and he was superannuated at the age of 60 years, which he had claimed was illegal and arbitrary. In support of his case, the Applicanthad cited the Judgments and Orders of various Courts / Tribunals, viz. - the Judgement & Order dated 29.10.1991 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the C.A. No.3519 of 1984 and W.P. No.1228 of 1986 ;the Judgement & Order dated 10.09.2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the C.A. No.444-450 of 2002 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. C.B. Gangadharaiah & Ors.) ;the Order dated 08.02.2016 of the 5 OA No.636/2017 Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.82/2012 (Dr. A. Subba Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors.) ;and the Order dated 24.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench at New Delhi of this Tribunal in O.A. No.2712/2016 (Dr. Santosh Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) with similar other O.A.s.
6. Vide their reply, the Respondents had agreed only to the matters of facts on record, inter alia - that the Applicant was initially appointed as ad-hoc R.O.(Medical) in the M.O.F.R.S. and had joined on 20.04.1987 at the R.O.H.&F.W., Jaipur ; that the M.O.F.R.S. was integrated with the N.M.E.P./N.A.M.P. and 156 temporary posts were created under the Directorate of N.M.E.P. and Regional Offices of Ministry of H.&F.W., to be filled up by transfer of the existing incumbents working under M.O.F.R.S. ; that eventually vide order dated 29.03.2004 the Applicant inter alia had been appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 29.09.1995 against the post of R.O.(Medical) at R.O.H.&F.W., Jaipur ; and that the Applicant had eventually superannuated from the said post on 31.05.2016 afternoon.
The Respondents had also agreed to the facts related to the first round of related litigation, inter alia - that in pursuance of the Orderdated 21.07.2016 inthe earlier O.A. No.580/2016 filed before this Tribunal, the Applicant had submitted his representation dated 27.07.2016 ; and that the Applicant had filed C.P. No.040/2016 claiming inaction by the Respondents despite this Tribunal's order dated 21.07.2016 ; that the afore- said representation had been disposed of vide the letter dated 03.11.2016 of the Administrative Officer N.V.B.D.C.P. whichhad also been sent to the Applicant inter alia vide Speed Post on 08.01.2018 ; and that the afore-said C.P. had thereafter been closed by this Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2018, while noting 6 OA No.636/2017 that the representation of the Applicant dated 27.07.2016 had been decided by the Respondents on 08.01.2018.
7. Per contra to the other contentions of the Applicant, the Respondents had averred that vide the order dated 31.05.2016 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, it had been decided to enhance with immediate effect the age of superannuation of the Specialists of Non-teaching and public health sub cadres and General Duty Medical Officers (G.D.M.O.) of C.H.S. to 65 years ; however, the Applicant did not belong to any of the afore- mentioned categories, but was Research Officer(Medical), N.V.B.D.C.P., in the R.O.H.&F.W. Rajasthan,Jaipur. Hence, the order dated 31.05.2016 did not apply to his case and he had been retired on attaining the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.05.2016 itself. Moreover, it was contended that the clarification vide O.M. dated 30.08.2016 of the M.O.H.&F.W. (C.H.S. Division) had confirmed that the order dated 31.05.2016 was applicable to C.H.S.doctors only ; and that it was clear from the perusal of the appointment letter dated 15.04.1987 that the Applicant was initially engaged on ad-hoc/urgent temporary basis as a Research Officer in the M.O.F.R.S.The subsequent integration of M.O.F.R.S. with the N.V.B.D.C.P. (erstwhile N.M.E.P. / N.A.M.P.) vide letter dated 29.09.1995 was not tantamount to the post of R.O.(Medical), N.V.B.D.C.P., being included in C.H.S. medical specialist / G.D.M.O. sub-cadre ; and in fact, after the retirement of the Applicant, such post of R.O.(Medical) had been abolished.
8. Regarding the Judgments and Orders of various Courts and Tribunals cited by the Applicant in support of his case, the Respondents had contended as follows -
7OA No.636/2017 That the Judgment & Order dated 29.10.1991 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the C.A. No.3519 of 1984 and W.P. No.1228 of 1986 was in respect of the services of certain Medical Officers appointed prior to 1978 on ad-hoc basis in Group-B Pay Scale against sanctioned Group-A posts of Medical Officer in C.H.S. ; and the same had been complied with by regularization of the services of the concerned Medical Officers in Group-A of the C.H.S vide order dated 07.05.1992 of the M.H.&F.W. Thereby, it would emerge clearly that the said Judgment was in no way applicable in the case of the Applicant.
That the Judgment & Order dated 10.09.2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the C.A. No.444-450 of 2002 in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs B. Gangadharaiah & Ors. was in respect of counting of the past services rendered by the employees of the erstwhile M.O.F.R.S. prior to their merger with N.M.E.P. (later N.V.B.D.C.P.) on 29.09.1995 ; and the same had been complied with by allowing the counting of such services for all 156 posts created on 29.09.1995 towards pensionary and other benefits admissible in accordance with C.C.S.(Pension) Rules vide order dated 19.08.2004 of the M.H.&F.W. - which had also clarified further that with regard to Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) to such employees, they would be entitled to get benefits only from the date of absorption, i.e. 29.09.1995 as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement dated 10.09.2003 (supra). Thereby, it would emerge clearly that the said Judgment was inter alia regarding grant of A.C.P. Scheme benefits to the 156 employees including also the Applicant, of the erstwhile M.O.F.R.S. prior to its merger with N.M.E.P. (later N.V.B.D.C.P.) on 29.09.1995 ; and was in no way regarding grant of Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (D.A.C.P.) benefits to them - which had been introduced vide M.H.&F.W. circular/letter dated 05.04.2002 to be applicable only in the cases of (i) the G.D.M.O. 8 OA No.636/2017 sub-cadre Medical Officers of C.H.S. and (ii) the Specialist officers of the Non-Teaching and Public Health sub-cadres of the C.H.S. That the Order dated 08.02.2016 of the Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.82/2012 (Dr. A. Subba Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors.) was prior to the date of issue of enhancement of age of superannuation of the Specialists of Non-teaching and public health sub cadres and General Duty Medical Officers (G.D.M.O.) of C.H.S. to 65 years and hence, it was not connected at all to the issue of enhancement of age of superannuation vide later Order dated 31.05.2016 ; but had directed the Respondent department to grant the benefit under D.A.C.P. Scheme to the applicant therein, primarily on the ground that the Applicant was not a beneficiary of any other Scheme. However, the benefits of the A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme had been allowed already for all 156 employees of the erstwhile M.O.F.R.S.in pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement dated 10.09.2003 (supra) which had been complied withby the Respondents. Also, the said Dr. Subba Rao, i.e. the applicant in O.A. No.82/2012 in the Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal had concealed those facts despite A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Scheme benefit having been granted to him as well specificallyw.e.f. 29.09.2007 vide Order dated 14.07.2017.Respondents further submitted that a Review Petition on the matter of grant of D.A.C.P. as such had been filed by them before the Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal which was pending ; nonetheless thereby, it would emerge clearly that the said Orderdated 08.02.2016 could in no way be applicable for enhancement of the age of superannuation as per later Order dated 31.05.2016, as prayed by the present Applicant in O.A. No.636/2017.
That the Order dated 24.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench at New Delhi of this Tribunal in O.A. No.2712/2016 (Dr. Santosh 9 OA No.636/2017 Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) with similar other O.A.s was in respect of the enhancement of retirement age to 65 years for G.D.M.O. appointed in the discipline of Ayurveda/Homeopathy who were posted in North Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation. Therein, it had been held that there was no intelligible differential, either between allopathic doctors working in Medical Officer posts and those working as such in Indian system of medicines under Ministry of AYUSH ; or between doctors working in Medical Officer posts under C.H.S. vis-à-vis those working as such in other Central Government posts/organizations. Thereby, it would emerge clearly that the said Order was inapplicable for the present Applicant, a Research Officer(Medical) in the N.V.B.D.C.P., who was neither a G.D.M.O. in a non-allopathic discipline nor a doctor working as a Medical Officer in any non- C.H.S. post/organization.
9. Further, the Respondents had also mentioned of certain other cases relevant in this regard. Firstly, in the case of Dr. C.Nagaraj, R.O. under I.C.M.R. Bangalore - who had filed O.A. No.390/2011 in the Hon'ble Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal for seeking extension in the age of superannuation to 62 years as per the Central Government's earlier Order dated 16.11.2006 - the extension in the age of superannuation to 62 years had been denied vide Speaking Order dated 30.11.2012,since the said Dr. C. Nagaraj was neither holding the post of G.D.M.O. of C.H.S., nor holding the post of Specialist doctor of (i) teaching or (ii) non- teaching or (iii) public health sub-cadre of C.H.S. Also, in pursuance of the Order dated 03.11.2016 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench, New Delhi of this Tribunal in O.A. No.3696/2016 with M.A. No.3265/2016 - filed by Academy of Biomedical Scientists (formerly, National Council of Biomedical 10 OA No.636/2017 Scientists),representing Group-A gazetted non-medical scientists and technical posts under D.G.H.S., M.H.&F.W. - seeking extension in the age of superannuation to 65 years as per the Central Government Order dated 31.05.2016,had been dealt with vide the Speaking Order dated 24.01.2017 of the M.H.&F.W. Thereby, the representation dated 18.07.2016 for extension in the age of superannuation to 65 years of Non-Medical Scientists working under D.G.H.S., M.H.&F.W. made by Academy of Biomedical Scientists, had been consideredand found to be not justified - inter alia, since vide the Judgment & Order dated 15.11.1989 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.1018 of 1989 (Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India & Ors.) relied upon by the petitioners, there was no direction to treat the petitioners at par with the doctors of C.H.S. in so far as retirement age was concerned ; and since vide the Order dated 31.05.2016, the M.H.F.W. had enhanced the age of superannuation of the doctors of C.H.S. to 65 years due to acute shortage of doctors, low joining rate among the newly recruited/selected candidates and high attrition rate in C.H.S.for doctors required to treat patients. Hence, the representation of the petitioners who were not working to treat patients,for enhancement of their age of superannuation to 65 years was not acceded to and rejected.
10. The pleadings of the parties in the case had been carefully gone through along with the related annexures, inter alia the Order dated 31.05.2016 of the MH&FW and the various Orders of the Courts/Tribunals that had been relied upon/cited therein. The arguments of learned Counsels for the parties were also heard. Based on the foregoing facts and examination of the pleadings and arguments before us, the crux of the matter was whether the Applicant was entitled for the enhancement of the age of 11 OA No.636/2017 superannuation as per Order dated 31.05.2016 of the M.H.&F.W. in view of the different grounds as cited by the Applicant.
11. Regarding the groundthat the other doctors who were working in the C.H.S. had not been superannuated on the age of 60 years and their date of superannuation had been enhanced, which was discriminatory - Respondents had brought out that the enhancement of the age of superannuation to 65 years was applicable to the Specialists of Non-teaching and public health sub cadres of C.H.S. and General Duty Medical Officers (G.D.M.O.) sub-cadre of C.H.S. - as that would enable better services of treatment of patient in the hospitals by experienced Medical Officers/doctors. However, the Applicant was not similarly placed as he did not belong to any of the afore-mentioned categories of Medical Officers/doctors, but was Research Officer(Medical), N.V.B.D.C.P. in the Rajasthan R.O.H.&F.W., Jaipur - whose services did not involve treatment of patients at all. Hence, the order dated 31.05.2016 being not applicable to his case, he had been retired on attaining the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31.05.2016 itself. Thus, it was shown that the other Medical Officers/doctors with functional assignment for treating patients vis-a-vis the R.O.(Medical) in N.V.B.D.C.P. involved in research were two very distinct groups within C.H.S. - and applicability of the decision to enhance the age of superannuation to the former and its non- applicability to the latter was justifiable as per the objective of making available treatment facilities to patients was not found to be deemable as arbitrarily discriminatory.
Further, we also deemed it apposite to advert to the Order dated 21.08.2018 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench at New Delhi of this Tribunal in the O.A. No.335/2018 (Dr. Salma Khatun Vs. Ministry of Ayush & Ors.). The applicant therein had joined the service of the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine under the 12 OA No.636/2017 Ministry of Ayush and was holding the charge of Assistant Director. She had claimed entitlement to remain in service till the age of 65 years in pursuance of the Order dated 31.05.2016, but the same had been rejected by the respondents therein and she stood retired w.e.f. 31.01.2018. Aggrieved by the same, she had filed the said O.A. No.355/2018 with the prayer inter alia to quash the action of the respondents therein of retiring her w.e.f. 31.01.2018, and for a direction to continue her till she attained the age of 65 years. Vide the Order dated 21.08.2018 thereon, it had been held inter alia that -
"3. It is pleaded that the very purpose of enhancing the age of superannuation of the doctors was to avail the services of the doctors for the benefit of the people at large, and that the distinction between the employees in the health services of the Central Government and other organisations, on the one hand, and the autonomous bodies, like the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from being unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory.
4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the decision to enhance the age of superannuation was taken with the sole objective of making the services of experienced doctors available for treatment of the patients in the hospitals. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is not associated with any activities of treatment of patients, and it being purely a research institution, the employees therein cannot be compared with the doctors who treat the patients.
......
6. ... ... Some uncertainty prevailed as to whether the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation is available to the doctors working in the AYUSH department. In OA No.2292/2017 and batch, a Division Bench of this Tribunal, through its judgment dated 05.09.2017, held that the benefit is available to such doctors also.
7. We would certainly have granted the same relief to the applicant, had she been a doctor working in the hospitals established by the department. Admittedly, she is an employee of the 3rd respondent, which is purely a research organisation. It is not even alleged that the employees or specialists working in the 3rd respondent organisation treat the patients of any kind whatever. ... ...
8. The age of superannuation happens to be an important condition of service, and an employee has to retire at the age of superannuation stipulated under the relevant rules. The question of discrimination in matters of this nature would arise only if the benefit is extended to employees or to the doctors who are employed in the research organisations, which are similar to the 3rd respondent. Though medical doctors may constitute a class in general, viewed in the context of the degrees which they hold, their further classification depending upon the nature of duties assigned or discharged by them, cannot be treated an 13 OA No.636/2017 irrelevant consideration in the context of their classification. When the age of superannuation was enhanced with the sole objective of making the services of experienced doctors available to the needy public, the question of extending that very benefit to doctors who are associated purely with research activities does not arise. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant any relief to the applicant.
9. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
Therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid Order was found to be that the age of superannuation was an important condition of service of employees ; and the question of any discrimination in matters related to it would only arise if the applicability was differential between similarly placed employees. Also, further classification despite the same qualifying degree, depending upon the nature of duties assigned or discharged, was not an irrelevant consideration.
Relevantly in the present case, the services of the medical officers/doctors as the Specialists of Non-teaching and public health sub cadres of C.H.S. and of General Duty Medical Officers (G.D.M.O.) sub-cadre of C.H.S. were required to treat patients. There was no claim that in course of the services of Research Officer(Medical) in N.V.B.D.C.P., i.e. the post held by the Applicant, he was required to treat patients. Hence, the making applicable of a lower age of superannuation to those officers who were involved in research work ; and of a higher age of superannuation to those medical officers/doctors who were required to treat patients - was not found to be discriminatory such as to require a parity among them mandatorily.
12. Regarding the claim that since the Applicant was getting all due benefits similar to a doctor in the C.H.S., hence the enhancement in the age of superannuation to 65 years was also purportedly a benefit that should be allowed to him on par with the doctors in C.H.S. - While the enhancement of age of 14 OA No.636/2017 superannuation was being stated as a benefit of service purportedly, it was in fact not a benefit in the nature of perks or allowances etc. that accrue to an employee, but was a policy decision in respect of the terms and conditions relating to the service. Also, in its capacity as the employer, it would be under the purview of the Government - in this case through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare - to decide upon the terms of service/employment for different categories of its employees appropriately, if distinguished as per considerations that were deemed as relevant. In the present case it had been shown from the various pleadings and arguments on behalf of the Respondents that inter alia the decision to enhance the age of superannuation was taken in the light of acute shortage of doctors, low joining rate among newly recruited/selected candidates and high attrition rate in C.H.S. ; and with the objective of making the services of experienced doctors available for treatment of the patients in the hospitals - which was a relevant consideration. Hence, the age of superannuation being made 65 years only for Medical officers/doctors as the Specialists of Non-teaching and public health sub cadres of C.H.S. and General Duty Medical Officers (G.D.M.O.) sub-cadre of C.H.S. was not found to be unreasonable or arbitrary.
Further, it was a settled position that the statutory rules would prevail and must be strictly adhered to and if the law requires something to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner. From the pleadings and the cases cited as well as by adverting to the relevant statutory provisions, it emerged that to ensure that the services of experienced Medical Officers/doctors were available for treatment of patients, the relatedFundamental Rules had already been amended for enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years inter alia for Medical officers/doctors as the Specialists of Non-teaching and 15 OA No.636/2017 public health sub cadres of C.H.S. and General Duty Medical Officers (G.D.M.O.) sub-cadre of C.H.S. - in pursuance of the policy decision dated 31.05.2016 as well as the decision to the effect that the doctors who are entitled to the enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years, shall not hold administrative positions beyond the age of 62 years.
Therefore, the implementation of 65 years as the age of superannuation for the Specialists of Non-teaching and public health sub cadres of C.H.S. and General Duty Medical Officers (G.D.M.O.) sub-cadre of C.H.S., was found to be as per the relevant Rules and also legal thus. Moreover, it was not brought before us that the relevant Rules applicable to Research Officer (Medical) under N.V.B.D.C.P. had included the enhanced age of 65 years for their superannuation. Hence, the non-application of the enhanced age of 65 years to them was not found to be illegal.
13. We had also carefully perused the various Judgments and Orders cited by the Applicant and the Respondents in support of their respective claims/stand.
Firstly, it was found from perusal of the Judgement & Order dated 29.10.1991 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the C.A. No.3519 of 1984 and W.P. No.1228 of 1986 that the same was of a date prior to the enhancement of the age of superannuation vide Order dated 31.05.2016 ; and thus it neither could have covered the same issue nor was the same issue actually covered by it in any way. Moreover, the compliance by the Respondents to the said decision - pertaining to the services of certain Medical Officers appointed prior to 1978 on ad-hoc basis in Group-B Pay Scale against sanctioned Group-A posts of Medical Officer in C.H.S. - was not found to be of any help towards enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years for the Applicant in the present case. 16 OA No.636/2017 Secondly, it was found from perusal ofthe Judgement & Order dated 10.09.2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the C.A. No.444-450 of 2002 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. C.B. Gangadharaiah & Ors.) that the same was of a date prior to the enhancement of the age of superannuation vide Order dated 31.05.2016 ; and thus it neither could have covered the same issue nor was the same issue actually covered by it in any way. Moreover, the compliance by the Respondents to the said decision
- pertaining to the counting of the past services rendered by the employees of the erstwhile M.O.F.R.S. prior to their merger with N.M.E.P. (later N.V.B.D.C.P.) on 29.09.1995 towards pensionary and other benefits admissible in accordance with C.C.S. (Pension) Rules and also further that they would be entitled to get A.C.P. benefits only from the date of absorption, i.e. 29.09.1995 - was not found to be of any help towards the enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 yearsfor the Applicant in the present case. Thirdly, it was found from perusal ofthe Order dated 08.02.2016 of the Hon'ble Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.82/2012 (Dr. A. Subba Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors.) that the same was of a date prior to the enhancement of the age of superannuation vide Order dated 31.05.2016. Further, in respect of the said decision - pertaining to the grant of D.A.C.P. or otherwise to A.C.P./M.A.C.P. for assured career progression to the R.O.(Medical) from ex-M.O.F.R.S. - we deem it apposite to refrain from entering into any interpretation in view of the related matter being sub-judice as per the submission of the parties in the present O.A.,notwithstanding that it was shown that the issue of assured career progression for ex-M.O.F.R.S. officials had been considered previously in the directions/observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgement dated 10.09.2003 (supra). Nonetheless, we do observe that the said Order dated 17 OA No.636/2017 08.02.2016 was not directly about the enhancement of the age of superannuation to 65 years for cases similar to that of the Applicant as was claimed in the present case.
Fourthly, it was found from perusal of the Order dated 24.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench at New Delhi of this Tribunal in O.A. No.2712/2016 (Dr. Santosh Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) with similar other O.A.s. that not only was the same of a date after the Order dated 31.05.2016 but had also pertained to the issue of enhancement of the age of superannuation. However, the said Order had pertained to applicability of enhanced age of superannuation between different set of Medical Officers/doctors who were working to treat patients. The said Order/decision - wherein it had been held that there was no intelligible differential either between allopathic doctors and those working in Indian system of medicines under Ministry of AYUSH ; or within doctors working in Medical Officer posts under C.H.S. vis-à-vis those working in other Central Government posts/organizations - had directed for parity between Medical Officers/doctors serving for treatment of patients. However, the present Applicant, working as a Research Officer in the N.V.B.D.C.P., hadadmittedly not been serving for treatment of patients, as contrasted toSpecialists or G.D.M.O.s in allopathic or any Indian discipline of medicine, either under the C.H.S. or any non-C.H.S. post/organization who were working for treating patients. Hence, the afore-said Order dated 24.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench at New Delhi of this Tribunal in O.A. No.2712/2016 (supra) was found to be relevant, but not of any help towards the enhancement of the age of superannuation to 65 years for the Applicant as was claimed in the present case. Fifthly, it was seen from the Speaking Order dated 30.11.2012 in pursuance of O.A. No.390/2011 in the Hon'ble Bangalore Bench of 18 OA No.636/2017 this Tribunal in the case of Dr. C. Nagaraj, R.O. under I.C.M.R. Bangalore - that the same had pertained to a case for seeking extension in the age of superannuation to 62 years as per the then extant Central Government Order dated 16.11.2006. Thereby, the extension in the age of superannuation to 62 years had been denied, since the said Dr. C. Nagaraj was neither holding the post of G.D.M.O. of C.H.S., nor holding the post of Specialist doctor of (i) teaching or (ii) non-teaching or (iii) public health sub-cadre of C.H.S. The ratio of the said Speaking Order dated 30.11.2012 in pursuance of O.A. No.390/2011 in the Hon'ble Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal (supra) was relevant to the issue in the present O.A. However, it was observed that the same was issued in the context of a previous Order dated 16.11.2006 for extension of age of superannuation to 62 years ; and not in the context of the Order dated 31.05.2016 for extension of age of superannuation to 65 years.
Sixthly, it was seen from the Speaking Order dated 24.01.2017 in pursuance of the Order dated 03.11.2016 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench, New Delhi of this Tribunal in O.A. No.3696/2016 with M.A. No.3265/2016 filed by Academy of Biomedical Scientists - that the same had pertained to a case for seeking extension in the age of superannuation to 65 years as per the Order dated 31.05.2016. Thereby, the extension in the age of superannuation to 65 years had been found not justified and was denied, since the ratio for enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years for doctors of C.H.S. required to treat patients was due to acute shortage of doctors, low joining rate among the newly recruited/selected candidates and high attrition rate in C.H.S. - and therefore the representation of the petitioners, who were not working to treat patients, for enhancement of their age of superannuation to 65 years was not acceded to/rejected accordingly. The same was 19 OA No.636/2017 deemed to be directly relevant for the present case, since the Applicant herein had also not been working for treating patients.
14. We had already adverted to the Order dated 21.08.2018 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench at New Delhi of this Tribunal in the O.A. No.335/2018 (Dr. Salma Khatun Vs. Ministry of Ayush & Ors.) (supra). The applicant therein had joined the service of the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine under the Ministry of Ayush and was holding the charge of Assistant Director. She had claimed entitlement to remain in service till the age of 65 years. Vide the Order dated 21.08.2018 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Tribunal thereon, it had been held inter alia - that the Applicant was an employee of a purely a research organisation ; that it was not even alleged that the employees or specialists working in that organisation treat the patients of any kind whatever ; that the age of superannuation was an important condition of service, and an employee has to retire at the age of superannuation stipulated under the relevant rules ; that though medical doctors may constitute a class in general, viewed in the context of the degrees which they hold, their further classification depending upon the nature of duties assigned or discharged by them, cannot be treated an irrelevant consideration in the context of their classification ; and that when the age of superannuation was enhanced with the sole objective of making the services of experienced doctors available to the needy public, the question of extending that very benefit to doctors who are associated purely with research activities does not arise. Hence, the said O.A. had been dismissed without granting any relief to the applicant therein.
We found that the ratio of the said Order dated 21.08.2018 was squarely applicable in the case of the Applicant in the present O.A. before us also - since he was working in a research role as 20 OA No.636/2017 R.O.(Medical) in N.V.B.D.C.P. and there was no claim that in course of the services of R.O.(Medical) in N.V.B.D.C.P., he was required to treat patients. Hence, we are inclined to rely on the ratio of the Order dated 21.08.2018 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench at New Delhi of this Tribunal in the O.A. No.335/2018 (supra) in deciding the present O.A.
15. In the conspectus of the foregoing, we hold that the Applicant had failed to establish his claimvide the present O.A. to be allowed the enhancement in his age of superannuation to 65 years, either in terms of merit of the impugned policy decision dated 31.05.2016, or as per the statutory Rules, or even as per the law laid down in/precedence of cited cases in various Courts/Tribunals. We also do not find any illegality or infirmity in the action of the Respondents to deny such extension to the Applicant and to retire him upon reaching the age of 60 years.
16. Hence, the impugned Orders and actions of the Respondents are not required to be interfered with by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the present O.A. is dismissed. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) /ysm/