2020 (12) TMI 1388 - HC - Indian Laws

Benefit of extension of superannuation age to 65 like the AYUSH doctors - HELD THAT - Though the petitioner is functioning as Researcher under the Research Council/National Institute, but as requirement for upgrading the research skill, he treats patients in the OPD and IPD. In fact, he performs similar nature of duties like AYUSH doctor. Though his service condition is covered by different laws, but for all practical purposes, the petitioner is performing like a doctor. Though there is a clear-cut distinguishing features between the AYUSH doctor and that of the petitioner. The petitioner herein is also treating the patients like AYUSH doctors in OPDs and IPDs on regular basis. The learned CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has failed to consider the petitioner s duty and devotion in treating the OPD and IPD patients. Hence, the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by the learned CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of superannuation age to 65 for AYUSH doctors - Applicability to Research Assistant in Ayurvedic Service under Ministry of AYUSH.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Research Assistant in Ayurvedic Service, filed a Writ Petition seeking the benefit of extending the superannuation age to 65, similar to AYUSH doctors. The main contention was the applicability of a Notification dated 11.08.2018 concerning the extension of superannuation age for doctors. The petitioner argued that as per the Memorandum of Association (MoA) of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, the Fundamental Rules and General Financial Rules of the Government of India apply to employees, supporting his claim for the extension. He highlighted his role as a Research Officer and Assistant Director, actively involved in patient care alongside research activities, treating a significant number of patients over the years.

The Union of India, represented by Mr. Parhi, contended that the petitioner does not fall under the category of AYUSH doctors eligible for the extended age limit. The organization, an autonomous body under the Ministry of AYUSH, primarily focuses on research rather than patient care. The counsel argued that the decision to extend the superannuation age to 65 applies only to AYUSH doctors directly working under the administrative control of the Ministry, not to autonomous bodies like the petitioner's institute.

The Court analyzed the roles and duties of the petitioner, noting similarities with AYUSH doctors in patient care responsibilities. The bye-laws of the Central Council mentioned the application of Government rules, including superannuation regulations, to its employees. The Court found the Tribunal's decision dismissing the petitioner's claim as erroneous, emphasizing the petitioner's dedication to patient care. Consequently, the Court quashed the Tribunal's order and allowed the Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to follow the prescribed procedure for obtaining a copy of the judgment.

In conclusion, the Court's judgment favored the petitioner's claim for an extended superannuation age of 65, considering his patient care duties and the application of Government rules to employees of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences.