2025:JHHC:24810 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 297 of 2019 Prabhat Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 59 years, son of Ramji Prasad, resident of Village Lachragarh, PO-Lachragarh, PS-Kolebira, District-Simdega ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe Minority & OBC Welfare Dept. Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagannthpur, District-Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Planning and Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V -------- Order No. 6/Dated: 21st August 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. That by the instant writ petition, the petitioner, named above, prays inter-alia, for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondent authorities to forthwith enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 65 years, on the ground that the recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Commission, which has been adopted by the Government of Jharkhand on 15.09.2008, whereby, the committee has recommended that all the doctors should be treated at par for pay and allowance and service conditions purpose and also on the ground that the Allopathic Doctors in the State of Jharkhand have already been given the benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years vide circular dated 23.07.2011 and the petitioner may be permitted to discharge his duties till he attain the age of 65 years. And/Or For the issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue with regard to enhancement of age of Ayush Doctors with that of Allopathic Doctors has been decided and even the State of 2025:JHHC:24810 2 Jharkhand has extended the age of retirement of Ayush Doctors from 60 to 65 years and thereafter from 65 to 67 years and this Court in the case of “Dr. Ravindra Nath Prasad and Others v. State of Jharkhand; [W.P.(S) No. 209 of 2021 with analogous cases] has held that the resolution of enhancement of age dated 08.01.2021 shall be given effect to retrospectively from the date the Allopathic Doctors were given the benefit of enhancement of age of retirement from 60 to 65 years which will give the petitioner due right, the benefit of increased age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years. For brevity paragraph nos. 10 to 23 of W.P.(S) No. 209 of 2021 with analogous cases are extracted hereinbelow: “10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, the question that arises for consideration in the present writ petitions is; whether the resolution dated 08.01.2021 be given effect to retrospectively from 23.07.2011 as sought for by the petitioners by way of I.A No. 427 of 2021? 11. It appears from record that the State of Jharkhand has adopted by its resolution dated 28.02.2009, that the service condition prescribed by the Central Government will be applicable on the counterpart State employees. By this rationality, the age of the Ayurvedic Medical Officers should have been enhanced to 65 years, in accordance with the Central Government decision, wherein the age of retirement of Ayurvedic Medical Officers has already been declared to be 65 years [Refer the extract of the resolution dated 28.02.2009, Annexure 6 (Series)]. In spite of the above-mentioned resolution dated 28.02.2009, the benefit of the same had not been accorded to the Ayurvedic Medical Officers and their retirement age had not been enhanced to 65 years, till the resolution dated 08.01. 2021. 12. It further transpires that the 6th Central Pay Commission’s report had been adopted by the State of Jharkhand on 15.09.2008; by way of which the Ayurvedic Doctors have been given at par treatment with the Allopathic Doctors and by issuance of the circular on 23.07.2011, the Allopathic Doctors have been given the benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years by making necessary modifications in Rule 73 of the Jharkhand Service Code. However, in contempt of the said report, the age of superannuation of Ayurvedic Doctors had not been enhanced from 60 to 65 years till 2021. 13. Thus, it can safely be easily inferred that they have suffered unequal treatment on account of the same as the petitioners were also eligible to be given enhancement in the age of superannuation with respect to the circular dated 23.07.2011 but in spite of lapse of more than 10 years i.e. till 08.01.2021, no decision in respect of the same was taken by the respondent authorities in spite of repeated representations having been made by the 2025:JHHC:24810 3 petitioners. This has deprived the petitioners from the benefits arising out of the increase in age of superannuation for a long period of time for the reason that they were forced to retire at an early age of 60 years thus, robbing them of the retirement benefits which they would have otherwise acquired had their age of superannuation been increased to 65 years. 14. It is also evident from record that the petitioners have come to the State of Jharkhand after allocation of their cadre in anticipation that there cannot be any discrimination in the service conditions of the Ayurvedic Doctors with that of the Ayurvedic doctors who remained in the State of Bihar but in the highly arbitrary and illegal manner, the service condition of the petitioners have been altered by not giving them the benefit of enhancement in age from 60 to 65 years, while the doctors who are in the existing State of Bihar have already been given the said benefit which thereby is contrary to the statutory provision as contained in section 73 of the Bihar Re- organization Act, 2000. 15. These facts clearly indicates that there has indeed been alteration in the service conditions of the Ayurvedic Doctors after their allocation in the State of Jharkhand from the State of Bihar, as their age of superannuation has not been increased from 60 to 65 years till 08.01.2021; which is discriminatory and arbitrary on their part, thereby, violating the fundamental principles and essence of Article 14 enshrined in the Constitution of India. 16. Similar issue was raised in the case of Dr. Girish Chandra Prasad (supra), whereby the petitioner therein belonging to the same department and holding the same post had preferred writ petition for enhancement of age for 60 to 65 years. The matter was duly considered by this Court and direction has been issued upon the respondents to consider the case and pass appropriate order for age enhancement in accordance with law. 17. In yet another case, i.e. the case of Jyotish Chandra Singh & others (supra), this Court has held that the government itself had issued a notification dated 15.09.2016, whereby decision has been taken by the State of Jharkhand that the two cadres, i.e. Allopath and Ayush health services have been accorded the equal status and as such, now the plea taken by the respondents that the age of superannuation of the Ayush Doctors cannot be enhanced from 60 to 65 years; is not justified. 18. In furtherance of these judgments, the respondents have published one resolution dated 08.01.2021, whereby, it was notified in the para-4 of resolution, that the respondents are in agreement of the judgment that the doctors of the two services are to be treated at par and thus, the Ayush Doctors will have the age of retirement as 65 years, but as the petitioners content, its applicability has been limited from the date of issuance of the resolution, i.e. 08.01.2021 and this has been put to challenge in I.A No. 427 of 2021. 19. This court is of the opinion that the petitioners are right in contending that the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years via resolution dated 08.01.2021, should be given effect to retrospectively from 23.07.2011; whereby and where under the Allopathic Doctors have been given the benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years. Denying them the benefits of increase in the age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years, for such prolonged years had violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they have suffered unequal treatment and heavy loss due to non-increment in the age 2025:JHHC:24810 4 of their retirement. They have been forced to retire at the age of 60 years while the Central Health Services Doctors and Allopathic Doctors were enjoying the benefits of the increased retirement age which is highly discriminatory, unfair, unequal, unreasonable and against the principles of Natural Justice. 20. In this regard reference may be made in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & others, reported in (2021) 17 SCC 642, wherein it has been held in para-22 & 23 as under: “The common contention of the appellants before us is that classification of AYUSIH doctors and doctors under CHS in different categories is reasonable and permissible in law. This however does not appeal to us and we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that the classification is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are performing the same function of treating and healing their patients. The only difference is that AYUSH doctors are using indigenous systems of medicine like ayurveda, unani, etc. and CHS doctors are using allopathy for tending to their patients. In our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme of things, does not qualify as an intelligible differentia. Therefore, such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The Order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24-11-2017 extending the age of superannuation to 65 years also endorses such a view. This extension is in tune with the Notification of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 31-5-2016.” “The doctors, both under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry [F. No. D. 14019/4/2016-E-I (AYUSH)] dated 24-11-2017 must be retrospectively applied from 31-5 2016 to all the respondent doctors concerned, in the present appeals. All consequences must follow from this conclusion.” In light of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court; whereby it has upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court that the classification being made between the Allopathic and Ayush Doctors, is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both the segments perform the same function of treating and healing their patients. 21. Thus, the differential treatment that had been accorded to the Ayurvedic Doctors in the present case for such a long duration, i.e. from 2011 to 2021, is highly arbitrary and discriminatory as it has deprived them the benefits of increased age of retirement. There is no proper justification, in the eyes of law, provided by the respondent authorities so as to support their case as to why the Ayurvedic Doctors have not been granted the benefits of age enhancement for such a long period of time despite of various circulars and resolutions of the Central Government and of the State of Jharkhand itself, having notified that, both Allopathic and Ayurvedic Doctors should be treated at par. 22. Bearing in mind these facts, judgements cited, submissions made and contentions raised, it is apparent on the face of it that the respondent authorities have acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner due to which the petitioners have suffered heavy loss of retirement benefits. And even when they passed the resolution on 08.01.2021 enhancing the retirement age; these petitioners have already retired prior to 2021. Hence, the petitioners could not claim the benefits as the resolution was given effect to 2025:JHHC:24810 5 prospectively. This has indeed not served the purpose of justice and equity and has gravely violated their fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 23. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the resolution dated 08.01.2021, should be given effect to retrospectively from the date the Allopathic Doctors were given the benefit of enhancement of age from 60 to 65 years; which will give the petitioners their due right to claim the benefits of increased age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years and undo the injustice that has been done to them for so long.” 3. It further transpires from records that in the case of “Dr. Mira Chaudhary and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.” [W.P.(S) No. 2379 of 2025] this Court has further directed the respondents on the same line to enhance the age from 65 to 67 years for the Ayush Doctors as the age of retirement of Allopathic Doctors were extended from 65 to 67 years. For brevity, paragraph nos. 6 to 9 of W.P.(S) No. 2379 of 2025 are extracted herein below: “6. After going through the aforesaid judgment, the only difference is factual in nature, inasmuch as, in the said case the Petitioners came for enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years and in the instant case now they have pleaded for extension of age from 65 to 67 years on the ground that the retirement age of Allopathy Doctors has been extended from 65 to 67 years. It further appears that the judgment relied upon the by the Respondents i.e. Dr. P.P. Bhatt (supra), it appears that the same is not applicable in the instant case which would be evident from the very recital of para 20 of the said judgment. The fact in case of Dr. P.P. Bhatt (Supra) was with regard to pay fixation and the pay scale etc. and the same has been deliberated by the Hon’ble Apex court in para 20. For brevity, para 20 is quoted hereinbelow: “20. In any case, the question of age of retirement stands on a different footing from the service conditions relating to pay and allowances and revision of pay. Therefore, we do not think that the issue raised in these appeals can be said to be covered by the decision in Ram Naresh Sharma [North Delhi Municipal Corpn. v. Ram Naresh Sharma, (2021) 17 SCC 642].” 7. Interestingly, on the last occasion when this Court has directed to enhance the age of superannuation of Ayush Doctors from 60 to 65 years as that of Allopathy Doctors; the Government has implemented by respective notifications and at present the retirement age of AYUSH Doctor is 65 years. As aforesaid, the grievance of the Petitioners is now for extension of retirement age from 65 to 67 years on the same and similar reason that the style of treatment of both the Doctors might be different but both are treating their patients for ultimate relief. As aforesaid, in the case of Dr. R. Naresh (supra) it has been held that the only difference between the AYUSH Doctors and the CHS Doctors are that the former is using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, etc. and later are using Allopathy for treating their patients. 2025:JHHC:24810 6 8. This Court fails to understand, when on the earlier occasion on the same and similar grounds; the superannuation age of Ayush Doctor has been extended from 60 to 65 yeas as that of Allopathy Doctor, then there is no reason why the extension of 2 years which has been granted to Allopathy Doctor has not been extended to Ayush Doctors. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ application stands allowed and the Respondent authorities are directed to accept the claim of the Petitioner and issue necessary notification by extending the retirement age of the AYUSH Doctors from 65 to 67 years. Necessary consequential benefits be accordingly extended to them as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Pending I.As., if any, is also closed.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and submits that the case is squarely covered by the above referred judgments. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the admitted position, the instant writ application, is hereby, allowed by directing the Respondents to calculate the age of retirement of the Petitioner who is a Ayush Doctor as 67 years as held by this Court in the above referred judgments and thereafter calculate the consequential benefits in his favour and pay the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 6. Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit N.A.F.R