2026:JHHC:25272 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1523 of 2025 --------- 1. Dr. Umeshwar Sharma, aged about 71 years, son of Late Anjani Kumar Singh, resident of Village & P.O. Riga, P.S. Riga, District Sitamarhi, Bihar-843327. 2. Dr. Bina Choudhary, aged about 68 years, wife of Dr. Umeshwar Sharma, resident of Village & P.O. Riga, P.S. Riga, District Sitamarhi, Bihar-843327. 3. Dr. Raj Narayan Jha, aged about 68 years, son of Late Shiv Nath Jha, resident of Village & P.O. Narayanpur, P.S. Patahi, District East Champaran, Bihar-845427. 4. Dr. Bhuneshwar Singh, aged about 71 years, son of Late Ram Bilash Singh, resident of Param Nagar, Near MICO, Old G.T. Road, Sasaram, P.O., P.S. & District Sasaram, Bihar-821115. 5. Dr. Md. Anwar Husain, aged about 68 years, son of Late Md. Sarif Husain, resident of Mohalla Asanbani, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda, Jharkhand-814133. 6. Dr. Kumar Ajit Rao, aged about 69 years, son of Late Chamari Rao, resident of Mohalla - Raghunath Tola, Anishabad, P.O.- Anishabad, P.S. Gardanibag, District - Patna, Bihar - 800002. 7. Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad Ansari, aged about 73 years, son of Late Md. Riyazuddin, resident of Arvindo Nagar, Near Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. -Doranda, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834002. 8. Dr. Shambhu Prasad Sharma, aged about 71 years, son of Late Bhagwan Prasad Sharma, resident of Road No. 2, Krishnapuri, P.O. - Krishnapuri, P.S. -Chutia, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834011. 9. Dr. Birendra Kumar, aged about 73 years, son of Late Pokharaj Bahadur Singh, resident of Opposite Zila Madhyamik Shikchhak Sangh, New Area, Nawada, P.O. & P.S. Nawada, District - Nawada, Bihar 805110. 10. Dr. Naresh Chandra Narayan, aged about 72 years, son of Late Ramdhani Yadav, resident of Bhojpur Colony, Rajendra Palace, Chas, P.O. & P.S. - Chas, District -Bokaro, Jharkhand-827013. 11. Dr. Ram Ekbal Paul, aged about 73 years, son of Late Ram Keshi Pal, resident of 304, V.K. Enclave, Vidyapati Nagar, Kanke Road, Kanke, P.O. & P.S.-Kanke, District - Ranchi, PIN- 834008. 12. Dr. Md. Hashmatullah, aged about 70 years, son of Md. Rahmatullah, resident of Opposite Dablu Patakha, Upper Kulhi, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District – Dhanbad ......Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. P.S. Doranda, District - 2026:JHHC:25272 2 Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi. 5. The Director, AYUSH Directorate, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, R.C.H. Campus, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District - Ranchi. 6. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, having its office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. .....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate Mr. Moti Gope, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate --------- 05/Dated:-20.08.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the concerned respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners who are Ayurvedic, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathic (hereinafter referred as 'AYUSH') Doctors from 60 to 65 years w.e.f. 23.07.2011 instead of 08.01.2021, the date from which the age of superannuation of Allopathic Doctors enhanced from 60 to 65 years and to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the order dated 24.09.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 209/2021 and analogous cases (Annexure-4) by this Hon'ble Court, which has been passed in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vrs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and others, reported in (2021) 17 SCC 642. (b) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the concerned respondents to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioners who are AYUSH Doctors, like arrears of pay, revised pay in 7th P.R.C. till they attain the age of 65 years, and thereafter re-fix the pension and other retiral benefits, like, Gratuity, Leave Salary etc. and pay the arrears of pension and other consequential benefits after adjusting the amount already paid to them and other benefits, if any, as per the law, considered by the respondent authorities. (c) For the issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may appear just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners 2026:JHHC:25272 3 submits that the issue involved in this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court on 24.07.2025 in W.P.(S) No. 2379 of 2025; as such, similar order be passed and similar benefit be granted to these petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent does not oppose the aforesaid contention of the petitioners, rather submits that the issue involved in this writ application is same and similar with that of W.P.(S) No.2379 of 2025; however, learned counsel submits that an appeal has been filed by the department against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No.2379 of 2025. 5. Having regard to the above and after going through the order passed by this Court in the above referred case and also looking to the prayer and averments made in this writ application, it appears that the issue has been decided in the aforesaid case. For brevity, para 5 to 9 of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2379 of 2025 is extracted hereinbelow:- “5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that this court in W.P.(S) No. 209 of 2021 with analogous cases have dealt with these issues in detail. For brevity para 19 to 23 is quoted 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 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:25272 4 “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 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. 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 2026:JHHC:25272 5 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. 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.” 6. Accordingly, on the same line and the same fining, the instant writ application is also allowed. 7. Accordingly, the respondents would proceed to pass an appropriate order considering the retirement age of these petitioners as 67 and calculate the monetary benefits and pay the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) AUGUST 20, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 27/08/2026