The Delhi High Court has sustained the validity of the Union Government’s 2018 amendment to Fundamental Rule 56(bb), which prescribes 62 years as the normal age of superannuation for doctors of the Central Health Service (CHS) and allied services, while permitting continuation up to 65 years only in non-administrative capacities.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a batch of petitions filed by senior CHS doctors and their associations. The petitioners had challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had earlier upheld the amendment.
Court Finds No Arbitrariness in Amendment
The High Court held that the amended provision flows directly from the statutory framework of Rule 56(bb) and does not infringe any vested promotional rights during the normal tenure of service. The Bench further concluded that the amendment does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness.
The Court observed that the challenge to the Notification dated August 11, 2018—by which clause (bb) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules was substituted—lacked merit.
Scope of the 2018 Amendment
Under the amended Rule 56(bb), doctors belonging to the Central Health Service and specified medical services retire at 62 years. However, they may opt to continue in service up to 65 years. Such continuation remains conditional and is confined to specified functional roles.
The amendment restricts post-62 continuation to duties involving teaching, clinical responsibilities, patient care, implementation of health programmes, public health functions, and advisory or consultancy roles, as determined by the competent authority. It expressly excludes continuation in administrative posts beyond 62 years.
The provision also created a limited window for serving doctors who had already attained 62 years or were due to attain that age within six months from the publication of the amendment. These officers could exercise an option to continue under the revised framework.
Administrative Charge Not a Separate Cadre
Rejecting the petitioners’ arguments, the Court clarified that Rule 56(bb), when read in its entirety, clearly establishes 62 years as the age of superannuation. The extension up to 65 years constitutes a conditional retention and does not alter the substantive rank of the concerned doctors.
The Bench further held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that administrative assignments form a separate cadre distinct from their substantive posts. Consequently, barring doctors from holding administrative posts after 62 years does not amount to reduction in rank.
The Court characterised the restriction as a regulatory condition attached to an optional extension of service within the statutory scheme governing such continuation.
Article 16 Not Attracted
Addressing the plea under Article 16 of the Constitution, the Court ruled that the petitioners could not claim a right to continue in administrative roles beyond the age prescribed by the governing rule. Equality of opportunity in public employment, the Bench observed, does not extend to claiming continuation in service contrary to statutory provisions.
The Court also clarified that continuation up to 65 years does not equate to an extension of normal tenure in the same manner as service prior to superannuation. Rather, it represents a conditional retention in service for specific purposes.
The amended rule does not contemplate promotional advancement during the extended tenure in the administrative hierarchy. The Court held that absence of promotional avenues during such conditional continuation cannot be equated with denial of a vested right to promotion.
Case Details
Title: Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others & Other Connected Matters
