"Powers Under Article 226 Limited"- Gauhati HC Dismisses Challenge To Assam Govt's Decision To Not Increase Retirement Age Of Ayurvedic Doctors
A Gauhati High Court Bench of Justice Suman Shyam has dismissed a set of writ petitions which challenged the 2016 decision of the Assam Government to not increase the retirement age of Ayurvedic doctors from 60 years to 65 years.
The Court observed that "questions such as enhancement of age of superannuation, being matters strictly lying within the realm of policy decision of the State, once there is a Cabinet decision in the matter and such policy decision is found to be based on reasonable grounds, the same cannot be termed as irrational, arbitrary or discriminatory. In such circumstances, the scope of judicial review of the Courts in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution would be extremely limited".
Senior Counsel BC Das and Counsel SH Rahman appeared for the writ petitioners. AG D Saikia and Counsel D Borah appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioners assailed a notification that increased the retirement age of Allopathic doctors and dental surgeons, but not of Ayurvedic doctors.
On hearing the parties, the Court proceeded to observe that "Health being a State subject, there can be no doubt or dispute about the fact that any decision/circular/notification of the Ministry of Health/AYUSH Ministry, Government of India would not be automatically applicable to the employees of the State Government, unless the same is specifically adopted by the Government of that State by making specific amendments to the Service Rules governing the terms and conditions of service of the respective categories of employees."
Subsequently, the Court analyzed a catena of decisions to take the considered view that in the absence of challenge to the Cabinet decision, the consequential notification of enhancement of age of superannuation would not be maintainable in the eyes of law.
The Court observed that although a classification was made in the matter of enhancement of age of superannuation between two different categories of doctors, such classification not only had a reasonable basis but also had a public purpose to be achieved. By extension of the same, it was held that "it cannot be said that the same is not based on reasonable classification. Once it is found that the differentiation is based on reasonable classification, the decision cannot be held to be violative of the principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India".
In light of the same, the challenges were dismissed.
Cause Title: Assam Ayurvedic Doctors Service Association & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
