# Dr. Surendra Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 144
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-27
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 30915 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-surendra-pratap-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49598
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Intelligible differentia - Age of
retirement - Discrimination made between
the doctors practicing homeopathy and
doctors practicing allopathy in respect of
their age of retirement - Permissibility -
Held, merely because the doctors are using
different mode of treatment, it would not
qualify as an intelligible differentia - The
classification was held unreasonable and
discriminatory and inconsistent with Article
14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 144
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ A No. 30915 of 2021

Dr. Surendra Pratap Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Intelligible differentia - Age of
retirement - Discrimination made between
the doctors practicing homeopathy and
doctors practicing allopathy in respect of
their age of retirement - Permissibility -
Held, merely because the doctors are using
different mode of treatment, it would not
qualify as an intelligible differentia - The
classification was held unreasonable and
discriminatory and inconsistent with Article
14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 8)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

1. North Delhi Municipal Corp. VsDr. Ram
Naresh Sharma & ors.; 2021 SCC Online SC 540
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

2. Present writ petition is filed by the
petitioner challenging the order dated
17.12.2021 passed by respondent no.2
Director, Department of Homeopathy, U.P.
8th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow. By the
said order petitioner is retied w.e.f.
31.12.2021 at the age of 60 years.

3. The facts of the case are that
petitioner is a homeopathic doctor working
with the State Government. By notification
dated 31.05.2017, the age of the medical
officers of the Provincial Medical and
Health Service in the State of U.P. was
enhanced from 60 years to 62 years. The
doctors working under the Provincial
Medical and Health Service are doctors of
Allopathy. The services of doctors of
homeopathy
belong
to
Homeopathic
Medical Service Cadre and the benefit of
the notification dated 31.05.2017 is not
extended to them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relies upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court passed in 'North Delhi Municipal
Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma
and others' reported in 2021 SCC Online
SC 540. Paragraph-23 and 24 of the said
judgment reads:-

"23. The common contention of
the
appellants
before
us
is
that
classification of AYUSH doctors and
doctors under CHS in different categories
is reasonable and permissible in law. This
however does not appeal to us and we are
inclined to agree with the findings of the
Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that the
classification
is
discriminatory
and
unreasonable since doctors under both
segments are performing the same function
of treating and healing their patients. The
only difference is that AYUSH doctors are
using indigenous systems of medicine like
Ayurveda, Unani, etc. and CHS doctors are
using Allopathy for tending to their
1 All. Dr. Surendra Pratap Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
145
patients. In our understanding, the mode of
treatment by itself under the prevalent
scheme of things, does not qualify as an
intelligible differentia. Therefore, such
unreasonable
classification
and
discrimination based on it would surely be
inconsistent
with
Article
14
of
the
Constitution. The order of AYUSH Ministry
dated 24.11.2017 extending the age of
superannuation to 65 Years also endorses
such a view. This extension is in tune with
the notification of Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare dated 31.05.2016.

24. The doctors, both under
AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients
and on this core aspect, there is nothing to
distinguish them. Therefore, no rational
justification is seen for having different dates
for bestowing the benefit of extended age of
superannuation to these two categories of
doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry
(F. No. D. 14019/4/2016-E-I (AYUSH)) dated
24.11.2017 must be retrospectively applied
from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondentdoctors,
in
the
present
appeals.
All
consequences
must
follow
from
this
conclusion."

5. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel submits that the benefit
of the aforesaid judgment could not be
granted to the petitioner inasmuch as in the
said case the Union of India had issued a
separate
order
giving
benefit
of
enhancement in age of retirement to the
Ayush doctors along with Allopathic
doctors.

6. I have heard learned counsels for
the parties and also perused the records and
the judgment placed before this Court with
their assistance.

7. In case of Dr. Ram Naresh
Sharma (supra), Union of India enhanced
the age of retirement of Allopathic doctors
working at Delhi from 60 years to 65 years.
The said benefit, however, was not
extended to Ayush doctors, hence, a claim
petition was filed before the Central
Administrative Tribunal which was allowed
vide order dated 24.08.2017 holding that
the Ayush doctors are also entitled to retire
at the age of 65 years as the Allopathic
doctors. Against the said order, a writ
petition was filed before the High Court
which was also dismissed by order dated
15.011.2018, affirming the order of the
Tribunal. The matter reached the Supreme
Court. During pendency of the writ
petition, the Central Government issued
notification
extending
the
benefit
of
retirement age of 65 years to the Ayush
doctors also, along with Allopathic doctors.

8. Be the facts as they may, the
Supreme
Court
considered
the
classification
created
by
the
Central
Government between the Ayush and
doctors of CHS practicing Allopathy and
held that the same is discriminatory and
unreasonable, since doctors under both the
segment are performing the same function
of treating and healing their parents.
Merely because they are using different
mode of treatment, it would not qualify as
an
intelligible
differentia.
Thus,
the
classification to be unreasonable and
discriminatory and inconsistent with Article
14 of the Constitution of India. The same
are the circumstances of the present case.
Doctors
practicing Allopathy working
under the Provincial Medical and Health
Services are given the benefit of retirement
at the age of 62 years while petitioner who
belongs of Homeopathic Medical Service
Cadre and treats his patients through
homeopathy is not given the benefit of
retirement age of 62 years. The same again
is a classification hit by Article 14 of the
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India as held by Supreme
Court in case of Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma
(supra).

9. In view thereof, the impugned
order dated 17.12.2021 is hereby set aside.

10. Petitioner is permitted to continue
in service till the age of 62 years and he
shall be provided all consequential benefits
of service in accordance with law.

11. With the aforesaid, the writ
petition stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 146
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 359 of 2022

Narayan Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue, Allahabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manish Kumar Nigam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Sri
Sanjay Maurya

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 285 E - Sale of Immovable Property -
The full amount of purchase money shall
be paid by the purchaser on or before the
fifteenth day from the date of the sale and
in case of default the deposit, shall be
forfeited to Government and the property
shall
be
resold
and
the
defaulting
purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the
property, or to any part of the sum for
which it may be subsequently sold -
provision contained under Rule 285-E of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules mandatory - In the
instant
case
auction
took
place
on
8.10.1975 and 1/4th (Rs.4,000/-) amount
was
deposited
by
respondent
on
8.10.1975
but
the
remaining
3/4th
amount
deposited
on
7.11.1975
i.e.
beyond period of 15 days from the date of
auction - sale certificate was issued on
7.6.1995
in
favour
of
respondent
-
Objection under Rule 285 I of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Rules was filed by the petitioners
on 8 7.2.1977 which was dismissed by the
Commissioner on the ground of limitation
and the revision was also dismissed by the
Board of Revenue - Held - Since, the 3/4th
amount has been deposited after period of
15 days from the date of auction, as such,
in view of provisions contained under Rule
285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the auction
/ sale shall deemed to be null and void
and property shall be re-sold. (Para 8, 9,
10,11)

B. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952,
Rule 285 I, - Application to set aside sale,
within 30 days - Delay - Limitation Act,
1963, S. 5 - limitation in filing the
objection under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules - provision of Section 5 of
Limitation Act will be applicable to the
proceeding under Rule 285 I of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R (Para 12)

C. Constitution of India,1950 - Art. 226 -
Alternative
Remedy
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952, Rule 285 E - direct writ
petition is also maintainable under Article
226 of the Constitution of India if there is
violation of Rule 285 E of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Rules (Para 13)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Manilal Mohanlal Shah & ors. Vs Sardar
Sayed Ahmad Sayed Mahmad & anr. AIR 1954
SC 349