New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking enhancement of the retirement age of doctors and medical officers working in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) and Border Roads Organisation (BRO) from 60 years to 65 years, holding that fixation of superannuation age is a policy matter falling within the executive domain.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora refused to interfere with the decision denying parity with doctors serving in other Central government organisations, including CAPFs and Railways, where the retirement age has already been increased to 65 years.
“The age of retirement is purely a policy matter which lies within the domain of the executive and it is not for the Courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from one applicable to government employees under relevant rules and regulations,” it said.
The Justice Kameswar Rao-led Bench added that it must be presumed that the executive had “weighed all the pros and cons” before declining the extension of retirement age and observed that it would not be a ground for judicial interference to enter into policy matters.
The petition was filed by Dr R.D. Thakur, a Medical Officer in GREF/BRO, challenging a July 3, 2023 speaking order by which the Ministry of Defence rejected the demand for enhancement of the superannuation age from 60 to 65 years.
During the hearing, petitioner’s counsel Ankur Chhibber argued that doctors in almost all other organisations under the Central government have already been granted retirement up to 65 years and denying similar treatment to doctors in GREF/BRO amounted to violation of the right to equality. It was contended that the reasons cited by the authorities for rejecting the proposal were “totally frivolous” and did not stand scrutiny.
The petitioner also argued that even low medical category officers are considered fit for service below certain altitudes and claimed that no Medical Officer in BRO is posted above 10,000 feet.
However, the Centre defended the decision, contending that BRO projects are largely situated in remote and high-altitude areas where physical fitness and operational requirements are critical considerations. It argued that personnel with higher age profiles or low medical categories cannot be posted in high-altitude and hard areas because of geographical and environmental constraints.
According to the Union government, increasing the retirement age to 65 years would create difficulties in postings in remote operational areas and would also delay promotional avenues for younger Medical Officers, leading to stagnation in the cadre.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Delhi HC observed that courts should be “slow and circumspect” in granting relief relating to continuation in service and reiterated that the age of superannuation is governed by statutory rules and service conditions.
“The respondents have given reasons for not enhancing the age of retirement to 65 years… it is not for this Court to go into the merits as the same are not ex facie arbitrary/perverse,” the bench said. Finding no merit in the plea, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.
(IANS)
