Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.46 seconds)North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Ram Naresh Sharma on 3 August, 2021
27. The argument of the learned Deputy Advocate General was that
subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat
and others Vs. Dr.P.A.Bhatt reported in (2023) 15 SCC 257 has clarified
that the decision rendered in North Delhi Municipal Corporation (supra)
did not enhance the age of retirement of the Ayush Doctors but simply
relied upon the Notification dated 24.11.2007 of the Ministry of Ayush
itself enhancing the age of retirement of Ayush Doctors at par with
Allopathy Doctors. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:-
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
State Of Gujarat & Ors. Etc. vs Dr. P A Bhatt & Ors. Etc. on 26 April, 2023
27. The argument of the learned Deputy Advocate General was that
subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat
and others Vs. Dr.P.A.Bhatt reported in (2023) 15 SCC 257 has clarified
that the decision rendered in North Delhi Municipal Corporation (supra)
did not enhance the age of retirement of the Ayush Doctors but simply
relied upon the Notification dated 24.11.2007 of the Ministry of Ayush
itself enhancing the age of retirement of Ayush Doctors at par with
Allopathy Doctors. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:-
Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 July, 2012
31. The judgment on which the petitioner relied is in the case of
Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1, the
relevant paras are reproduced, as under:-
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr vs Kailash Chand Mahajan And Ors on 20 February, 1992
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh
Vs Kailash Chandra Mahajan, AIR 1992 SC 1277 categorically held
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 19-05-2025
16:32:11
12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24098
W.P. No.17639/2022 & others
that it is permissible to have different retirement ages for different
classes or categories of staff in the same organization.
Ranjan Kumar Dubey vs State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance ... on 22 November, 2018
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that recently the
High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Dr. Ratan Kumar Dubey Vs.
State of Jharkhand & Anr and connected matters {W.P. (S)
1737/2021} vide its Judgment dated 26.11.2024 while considering a
similar issue wherein the Veterinary Doctors were seeking the benefit
of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years as was
done in the case of Allopathic Doctors, directed the Allopathic Doctors
and Veterinary Doctors to be treated at par in the matter of service
conditions and pay structure. Thus, the petitioners also deserve to be
continued up to the age of 65 years. It is further submitted that the State
of Chhatisgarh has amended the rules vide Gazette Notification dated
08.04.2015 enhancing the age of superannuation upto 65 years with
respect to the Veterinary Doctors working therein which are pari
materia to the rules of State of Madhya Pradesh.
Santosh Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 28 April, 2015
The North Delhi
Municipal Corporation (employer) filed writ petitions before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHRISTOPHER
PHILIP
Signing time: 19-05-2025
16:32:11
22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24098
W.P. No.17639/2022 & others
High Court of Delhi challenging the decision [Santosh Kumar
Sharma v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine CAT 10276] of the
Tribunal. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the Ministry
of AYUSH issued an Order dated 24-11-2017 enhancing the age of
retirement of AYUSH doctors also to 65 years, but with effect from
27-9-2017.