Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Barring Doctors From Holding Administrative Posts After 62 Years

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Union government's 2018 amendment to Fundamental Rule (FR) 56(bb), which allows doctors of the Central Health Service and other allied services to serve up to 65 years only in non‑administrative roles, while treating 62 years as the normal age of superannuation. A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a batch of petitions filed by senior Central Health Service (CHS) doctors and their associations challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order that had already upheld the amendment.The Court ruled that the impugned amendment flows directly from the statutory text of Rule 56(bb) and does not deny any vested promotional right within the normal tenure, and does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness. “The challenge to the validity of the Notification dated 11.08.2018, insofar as it substitutes clause (bb) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, is devoid of merit,” the Court said. Under the said amendment, the age of superannuation of doctors belonging to the Central Health Service and other specified medical services was stipulated as 62 years, with an option to continue in service up to the age of 65 years, subject to the condition that such continuation would be confined to teaching, clinical, patient care, implementation of health programmes, public health functions, and advisory or consultancy roles, as determined by the competent authority. The amended provision expressly excluded continuation on administrative posts beyond the age of 62 years. It further provided a limited window to serving doctors who had either already attained the age of 62 years or were to attain the said age within six months from the date of publication of the amendment, to exercise an option for continuation in service beyond that age. Rejecting the pleas, the Court said that the substituted Rule 56(bb), read as a whole, leaves little room for doubt that the age of superannuation remains 62 years and that continuation up to 65 years is conditional and confined to specified functional roles.It said that it was not shown that administrative charge constitutes a separate cadre distinct from the substantive post held by the concerned doctors and that the amended rule does not alter the substantive rank held by the concerned doctors.“Viewed thus, the restriction on holding administrative posts after attaining the age of 62 years does not constitute reduction in rank. It is a regulatory condition attached to an optional extension of service and forms part of the statutory framework governing such continuation,” the Court said. Further, the Bench said that the petitioners cannot invoke Article 16 to claim a right to continue in administrative assignments beyond the age prescribed by the governing rule, adding that equality of opportunity in matters of public employment does not extend to claiming continuation in service contrary to statutory prescription.The Court observed that continuation up to 65 years is not an extension of the normal tenure in the same sense as service prior to superannuation and that it is a conditional retention in service for specified purposes. It added that the rule does not envisage promotional advancement during such extended tenure in administrative hierarchy, and absence of promotional avenues during a conditional extension cannot be equated with deprivation of a vested promotional right.Title: DR. VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & Other Connected MattersClick here to read order

Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Barring Doctors From Holding Administrative Posts After 62 Years

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags