 Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 2011, wherein the increased of age of superannuation of allopathic Doctors.......){kind=link}
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed Petition of a Doctor challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment brought in Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 2011, wherein the increased of age of superannuation of allopathic Doctors have been increased from 62 years to 65 years w.e.f. 31.08.2010.
The petitioner while serving as Doctor in Ayush Department reached the age of 60 i.e. the age of superannuation as on 30.09.2017.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court and other Benches of High Court of M.P., Jabalpur and Indore have also entertained writ petitions at the instance of Ayush Doctors challenging the aforesaid Act as affront to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with the help of the judgment dated 03.08.2021 of Supreme Court delivered in the case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors. Hence prays for parity.
Also Read: Delhi High Court to hear interim bail plea of Sharjeel Imam tomorrow
M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General for the State has raised a preliminary objection as against maintainability of writ petition on following counts, namely,
(i)Petitioner since stood superannuated on 30.09.2017, now at a distance of time of more than 5 years he has approached this Court with the aforesaid challenge to the amendments in Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 2011. He is no more in service since 2017, as such there is no employer employee relationship.
(ii) This Bench and other Benches of the High Court of M.P. have entertained the plea on the touchstone of Article 14 and 16 only in the cases of such Ayush Doctors, who are in service. Hence, no parity can be claimed with the cases. However, he submitted that in case the petitions filed by existing Ayush Doctors succeeds, consequences if extended to the retired employees, the same may be extended to the petitioner.
Also Read: Freedom does not come for free, one has to work for it: Justice Ravindra Bhat
In view of the above, the Division Bench of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke found substantial force in the submissions of Raghuvanshi and, therefore, declined to interfere in the petition.