The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State to extend the superannuation age of AYUSH Medical Officers from 65 to 67 years, aligning it with the retirement age applicable to Allopathic doctors. The Court held that denying this benefit constitutes discriminatory treatment under Article 14, as both categories perform the same core function of treating patients. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to issue necessary notifications within four months.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Md. Sharifur Rahman, aged about 63 years, is an Ayush Medical Officer employed under the Department of Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, Minority and Other Backward Classes Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. He was due to superannuate on 30 November 2026 upon attaining the age of 65 years. The petitioner contended that the retirement age of Allopathic doctors had been extended from 65 to 67 years, and the same benefit ought to be extended to AYUSH doctors on the principle of parity established by the Supreme Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is an Ayush Medical Officer presently working in the Welfare Department headed by Respondent No. 2.
- His date of superannuation at age 65 years is 30 November 2026.
- The retirement age of Allopathic doctors has been extended from 65 to 67 years.
- In W.P.(S). No. 2379 of 2025, this Court had held that the retirement age of AYUSH doctors should be extended from 60 to 65 years on par with Allopathic doctors, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma (2021) 17 SCC 642.
- The Supreme Court in Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma held that classification between AYUSH and CHS doctors is discriminatory and unreasonable since both perform the same function of treating patients; the mode of treatment does not qualify as an intelligible differentia.
- The AYUSH Ministry Order dated 24 November 2017 extending superannuation to 65 years was directed to be applied retrospectively from 31 May 2016.
- The respondents filed a counter-affidavit but conceded that the issue in the present case is same and similar to W.P.(S). No. 2379 of 2025.
- The respondents relied on Dr. P.P. Bhatt (Supreme Court) which dealt with pay fixation and pay scale, a matter the Court distinguished as standing on a different footing from age of retirement.
Procedural History
- Date of filing: W.P.(S). No. 6500 of 2025 filed before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
- Hearing: 3 November 2026, heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan.
- Counsel: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar for the petitioner; Mr. Anuj Burman, AC to GA-IV for the respondents.
- Judgment pronounced: 3 November 2026.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) a writ of mandamus directing respondents to enhance the age of superannuation from 65 years to 67 years for AYUSH Medical Officers; (ii) a writ of mandamus for all consequential benefits flowing from such enhancement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the extension of superannuation age from 65 to 67 years granted to Allopathic doctors must be extended to AYUSH doctors on the ground that both categories perform identical functions of treating patients, and whether denial of such parity violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Saurabh Shekhar submitted that the law is settled regarding retirement age of AYUSH doctors. He drew the Court's attention to W.P.(S). No. 2379 of 2025 where this Court had extended the retirement age from 60 to 65 years on parity with Allopathic doctors. He argued that since Allopathic doctors' retirement age has now been further extended from 65 to 67 years, the same principle of parity requires extension of the benefit to AYUSH doctors. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma which held that classification based on mode of treatment is not an intelligible differentia and violates Article 14.
For the Respondents
Mr. Anuj Burman fairly submitted that though a counter-affidavit had been filed, he could not dispute that the issue involved in W.P.(S). No. 2379 of 2025 and the instant case are same and similar. The respondents relied on Dr. P.P. Bhatt (Supreme Court) to contend that the present claim is not covered by Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma. However, the Court noted that Dr. P.P. Bhatt dealt with pay fixation and pay scale, which stands on a different footing from age of retirement, as expressly stated in paragraph 20 of that judgment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the precedent set in W.P.(S). No. 2379 of 2025, which had extensively relied on North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma. In that judgment, the Supreme Court held:
"The common contention of the appellants before us is that classification of AYUSH 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 Court in W.P.(S). No. 2379 of 2025 had held that the resolution dated 8 January 2021 enhancing retirement age should be given retrospective effect from the date Allopathic doctors were granted the benefit of enhancement from 60 to 65 years. The present Court observed that the only difference between that case and the instant one is factual: the earlier case dealt with enhancement from 60 to 65 years, while the present case concerns enhancement from 65 to 67 years.
The Court further noted that the Government had implemented the earlier direction by issuing notifications, and the retirement age of AYUSH doctors currently stands at 65 years. The Court found no reason why the two-year extension granted to Allopathic doctors should not be extended to AYUSH doctors when the core reasoning - that both categories perform the same function of treating patients - remains unchanged. The Court expressly rejected the applicability of Dr. P.P. Bhatt, noting that paragraph 20 of that judgment states that the question of age of retirement stands on a different footing from service conditions relating to pay and allowances.
The Court concluded that the respondent authorities had acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner by not extending the benefit, and that the differential treatment violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 14.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner at the age of 65 years on 30 November 2026, and to allow him to perform his duties till he completes the age of 67 years. The respondent authorities were directed to accept the claim of the petitioner and issue necessary notification extending the retirement age of AYUSH doctors from 65 to 67 years, with all consequential benefits, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parity Principle Extends To Successive Enhancements
The judgment establishes that once parity is recognised between AYUSH and Allopathic doctors for retirement age, any subsequent enhancement granted to Allopathic doctors must automatically extend to AYUSH doctors. The principle is not limited to a one-time correction but applies prospectively to future revisions. Practitioners should argue that the Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma ratio creates a continuing obligation on the State to maintain parity.
Pay And Retirement Age Are Distinct For Parity Analysis
The Court's distinction of Dr. P.P. Bhatt clarifies that pay fixation and retirement age stand on different footings. A judgment denying parity in pay scales does not control the question of superannuation age. Lawyers must carefully separate these two service conditions when citing precedents; conflating them weakens the parity argument.
Four-Month Compliance Deadline Is Enforceable
The Court's direction to issue notifications within four months provides a concrete timeline for implementation. Practitioners representing similarly situated AYUSH doctors in other States can seek identical mandamus relief with a specific compliance deadline. The four-month period can be cited as a reasonable benchmark for administrative action in parity cases.
- File writ petitions seeking mandamus for retirement age parity citing Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and this judgment.
- Distinguish pay-related precedents by relying on paragraph 20 of Dr. P.P. Bhatt.
- Seek specific compliance timelines (four months) for notification issuance.
- Argue that the parity principle applies to all future enhancements, not just past ones.
