Delhi High Court Rejects Plea To Increase Retirement Age Of BRO Medical Officers From 60 To 65 Years
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking enhancement of the retirement age of doctors working in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF)/Border Roads Organisation (BRO) from 60 to 65 years, holding that the issue falls within the domain of executive policy.A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora refused to interfere with the government's...
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking enhancement of the retirement age of doctors working in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF)/Border Roads Organisation (BRO) from 60 to 65 years, holding that the issue falls within the domain of executive policy.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora refused to interfere with the government's decision, observing that courts cannot mandate changes in service conditions such as the age of superannuation.
“...the age of retirement is purely policy matter which lies within the domain of the executive and it is not for the Courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from one applicable to government employees under relevant rules and regulations. It is upon the executive to take a call as to whether the circumstances demand that a decision be taken to extend the age of superannuation in respect of a set of employees or not,” it observed.
The petitioner, a medical officer in GREF/BRO, had argued that doctors in several other government organisations had been granted an enhanced retirement age of 65 years and that denial of similar benefit to BRO doctors was arbitrary and violative of equality.
However, the respondents had stated that enhancement of age of superannuation of Medical Officers in GREF/BRO will lead to difficulties in posting to High Altitude Areas, Hard Areas and areas of remote locations.
The government had also cited concerns about stagnation in promotional avenues if the retirement age were increased.
Refusing to assess the merits of respondent's reasoning, the Court said, “it is not for this Court to go into the merits as the same are not ex facie arbitrary/perverse.”
As such, the Court dismissed the petition.
Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr Nirvikar Verma, SPC.
Case title: Dr R D Thakur v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13189/2023