2026:JHHC:18224 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3467 of 2019 …… Chedi Prasad, aged about 67 years, son of Late Prahlad Ram, resident of Block Road, Ratanpur, P.O. & P.S. Barharwa, District-Sahebganj. …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.& P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi. 2. The Director, Department of Health, R.C.H., Campus, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi. 3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj. …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Mehta, A.C. to G.P.-VI …… 09/ 15.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred for the following reliefs; (A) For quashing of the reasoned order as contained in memo no. 20/AYUSH NYAY/03/2014-58(20) dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure- 12) whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 1 rejected the claim of the petitioner with respect to enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 65 years on the ground that Jharkhand State Ayush Health Cadre rules 2018 has been formulated and process for fresh appointment has been initiated. (B) For further direction upon the respondent to enhance the age for superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 65 years and release the consequential benefits thereof. AND/OR For the issuance of any other appropriate writ (s) /order (s) / direction (s) for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:18224 2 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 209 of 2021 with analogous cases; wherein this Court has held the resolution dated 08.01.2021 to be given effect retrospectively from the date the Allopathic Doctor were given the benefit of enhancement of age from 60 to 65 years; as such, the instant writ application be allowed on the same finding by giving the same benefit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the aforesaid contention and fairly submits that the decision rendered in W.P.(S) No. 209 of 2021 with analogous cases is squarely applicable in this case. 5. Having regard to the fair submissions and looking to the prayer made in this writ application and also the order passed in the above referred case, it appears that this Court has already held that the Resolution dated 08.01.2021 is to be given effect retrospectively from the date of allopathic doctor were given the benefit of enhancement of age from 60 to 65 years. For brevity, relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “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 15 age 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: 2026:JHHC:18224 3 “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 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 2026:JHHC:18224 4 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.” 6. Having regard to the above, the reasoned order as contained in memo no. 20/AYUSH NYAY/03/2014-58(20) dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure-12) is quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to give the same benefit to this petitioner by enhancing the age for superannuation from 60 years to 65 years and release the consequential benefits thereof. The necessary consequential benefit be extended to him within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As. if any, also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J) 15.06.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded on 25.06.2026