Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan has dismissed a batch of writ petitions and upheld the Union government’s 2018 amendment to Fundamental Rule 56(bb), holding that 62 years remains the normal age of superannuation for doctors of the Central Health Service and allied services, with continuation up to 65 years available only on specified non-administrative assignments. The petitions challenged the restriction that doctors opting to serve beyond 62 could be utilised only in domains such as teaching, clinical and patient care, public health functions, and advisory or consultancy work. The Court agreed with the Central Administrative Tribunal’s view that the post-62 extension is conditional and optional, and found no basis to interfere with the amendment.

The petitioners, comprising doctors belonging to the Central Health Service (CHS) and their associations, challenged the validity of the amendment to Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules introduced vide Notification dated 11.08.2018. Prior to 2016, the age of superannuation for doctors under the Central Government was 60 or 62 years. By Notification dated 31.05.2016, the age was enhanced to 65 years. Subsequently, a Notification dated 22.03.2017 stipulated that doctors would not hold administrative positions after 62 years. The 2018 amendment substituted Rule 56(bb), fixing the age of superannuation at 62 years, with an option to continue up to 65 years in teaching, clinical, patient care, public health, advisory, or consultancy roles, excluding administrative posts.

Also Read: High Court Must Independently Apply Its Mind While Scrutinising SC/ST Act Charges In Section 14A Appeals: Supreme Court

The petitioners contended that the amendment curtailed a vested right to continue up to 65 years with full administrative powers, amounted to reduction in rank, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and adversely affected promotional prospects. The respondents submitted that continuation beyond 62 years was conditional and policy-based, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and that no vested right existed to continue in administrative assignments. The Tribunal dismissed the original applications, which was assailed before the High Court.

The Court observed that “Superannuation at the age of 62 years is the norm. Continuation beyond that age is not automatic or unconditional; it is contingent upon (i) the exercise of an option within the prescribed time, and (ii) acceptance of posting in the functional domains specified in the rule.” It further stated that “The rule does not provide for continuation on administrative posts beyond the age of 62 years.”

On the issue of reduction in rank, the Court recorded that “The amended rule does not alter the substantive rank held by the concerned doctors. It merely regulates the nature of duties to be discharged during the period of extended tenure beyond the prescribed age of superannuation.” The Bench also observed, “Viewed thus, the restriction on holding administrative posts after attaining the age of 62 years does not constitute reduction in rank.”

Addressing the plea of vested rights, the Court stated, “It is well settled that a Government servant has no vested right in the age of superannuation as such.” It added that “The Petitioners cannot claim a vested right in the continuance of a particular statutory regime.”

On the scope of judicial review, the Court recorded that “The Court does not sit in appeal over the wisdom of the rule-making authority.” It further stated that “Unless a rule is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, ultra vires the parent power, or violative of a constitutional or statutory provision, judicial review does not extend to substituting the Court’s perception of desirability for that of the competent authority.”

Regarding Articles 14 and 16, the Court observed that “The amended Rule 56(bb) operates prospectively and uniformly within each identified category. In the absence of arbitrariness or hostile discrimination, no violation of Articles 14 or 16 is made out.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Defers School-Level Fee Regulation Committee Constitution Till Feb 20

The Court recorded, “In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for interference with the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal. 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. In view of the aforegoing, the present Petitions are dismissed. All pending applications also stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sagar Saxena, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel (GNCTD Services) with Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates; Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India; Mr. Sahil Munjal, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms. Rhea Gandhi, Advocate; Mr. Nirvikar Verma, Senior Panel Counsel; Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, SPS with Ms. Preeti and Mr. Vaibhav Bhardwaj, Advocates

Case Title: Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1063-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 2517/2020 & Connected Matters

Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal, Justice Amit Mahajan