MP High Court Holds Amendment Depriving Veterinary Doctors From Benefit Of Enhanced Retirement Age Upto 65 Yrs As Discriminatory

The division bench of Former Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain observed, “Merely saying that the Allopathic Doctors and Ayush Doctos are treating human patients by adopting their own method cannot be equated with Veterinary Doctors as they are treating non-human patients, is not acceptable…In our view, a veterinarian or veterinary surgeon is a medical professional who practices veterinary medicines. They manage a wide range of health conditions and injuries in non-human animals…We are of the considered view that the claim of the veterinary doctors in respect of enhancement of age of retirement should be at par with the Allopathic Doctors and Ayush Doctors. In consequence thereof, the impugned amendment so far as it excludes the veterinary doctors depriving of benefit of enhancement of age of retirement upto 65 years is declared discriminatory and unconstitutional on the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we direct the State Government to come up with appropriate provision and rules fixing the age of retirement of veterinary doctors upto 65 years at the earliest, till then this judgment shall hold the field.”

Background

The Court was hearing a series of petitions filed by Veterinary Surgeons working with the State of Madhya Pradesh in Animal Husbandry and Dairy Department. 

The petitioners had challenged Sub-Rule (1-c)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Superannuation-Age) Amendment Act 2011 (Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam 2011) and had sought for it to be declared as ultra-vires to Constitution of India to the extent that it discriminates between Allopathic Doctors and Veterinary Doctors with respect to date of superannuation.

The petitioners challenged the amendment in Clause (1-c)/(a) published in Gazette Notification dated 06.05.2011 by which the retirement age of the Medical Doctors has been increased from 62 to 65 years and the petitioners who are rendering similar services in Veterinary Department are yet to retire after attaining the age of 62 years.

The pleas allege that discrimination was being caused amongst the veterinary doctors, who are rendering similar services as that of Medical Doctors in the State. 

The respondents in their reply stated that fixing of the age of retirement of any employee is within the domain of a policy decision and is the exclusive prerogative of the employer. Therefore, such rule is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further stated that the medical officers of the Health Department are different from the veterinary medical officers as both the departments have different recruitment rules, service conditions, educational qualifications, etc.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the services of veterinary doctors are similar to the services of doctors of Medical Health Services and there is no basis for providing any different treatment with respect of the retirement age of the petitioners. It was submitted that the State of Madhya Pradesh has also determined similar pay to veterinary doctors. Furthermore, the nature of job of Allopathic Doctor, Ayurvedic Doctor and Veterinary Doctor are same i.e. to provide treatment to their patients. Therefore, there is no intelligible differentia to discriminate amongst the three categories.

In addition to the reply filed by the respondents, the Deputy Advocate General submitted that the enhancement of retirement age from 62 to 65 years will bear additional cost on the government exchequer, which would be much higher, as compared to that of the financial burden to be borne out of the appointment at fresh recruitment level.

Findings

After examining the submissions made by the parties, the Court noted that fixing the age of retirement was purely a policy matter which lies within the domain of the State Government. “It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. It is trite that the Courts ordinarily do not interfere with policy decisions made by the Government unless those decisions are demonstrably unconstitutional or violative of fundamental rights.”, the Court said.

However, the Court went on to consider whether the amendment in question was discriminatory and against the principle of equality as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India so far as it excludes the Veterinary Doctors from being deprived of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years at par with Allopathic Doctors.

The Court referred to Dr. Ratan Kumar Dubey Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr wherein the Veterinary Doctors were seeking the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 65 years as in the case of Allopathic Doctors. The Court directed that the Veterinary Doctors should be treated at par in the matter of service conditions and pay structure.

Further, the Court noted that the State of Chhatisgarh looking into the paucity of veterinary doctors in the State has amended the concerned Rules related to age of superannuation and enhanced age of superannuation of Veterinary Doctors from 62 years to 65 years.

Thereafter, referring to notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH, the Court noted that there exists no anomaly between the Allopathic Doctors and Ayush Doctors so far as their age of retirement was concerned.

The Court opined that the argument that the Allopathic Doctors and Ayush Doctos who are treating human patients cannot be equated with Veterinary Doctors as they are treating non-human patients, is not acceptable.

“While the government has the right to set retirement polices, these must not create arbitrary or discriminatory classifications. Specifically any classification based on age must have rational nexus to a legitimate objective.”, the Court observed while referring to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The Court also mentioned the judgement of the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A.Nagaraja (2014) wherein the Court had addressed the rights and duties related to animals welfare including veterinary services.

Thus, the Court declared the impugned amendment which deprives the veterinary doctors of the benefit of enhancement of age of retirement upto 65 years, as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Case Title: Dr. O. P. Singh & Others Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 17639 Of 2022

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal, Advocate Warija Ghildiyal, Suyash Mohan Guru, Vishal Pateriya, Atul Upadhyay, Harsh Wardhan Singh

Counsel for Respondent/State: Deputy Advocate General Brahmadatt Singh