In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the State Government to issue an official circular or notification clarifying that the superannuation age for Medical Officers holding BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) or MBBS degrees is 62 years. This directive is intended to prevent unnecessary litigation by similarly placed employees.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Rekha Borana on April 9, 2025, in the case of Dr. Renu Kala Mathur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6471/2025).
Background of the Case
Dr. Renu Kala Mathur, a BDS-qualified Medical Officer appointed in 1995, filed a writ petition challenging the State’s order that set her retirement date as 30.04.2025, upon reaching 60 years of age. She contended that in light of the Division Bench’s ruling in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (decided on 26.02.2024), the retirement age for Medical Officers with BDS or MBBS degrees had been enhanced to 62 years.
Her counsel, Ms. Abhilasha Bora, pointed out that the judgment in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan’s case had already attained finality and had been partially implemented by the State in other cases.
The State's legal representatives did not dispute the legal position established by the Division Bench in the earlier ruling.
Justice Borana relied on the Division Bench decision in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan, which in turn was based on a prior ruling in Dr. Ranjan Mathur v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6312/2022, decided on 15.09.2022).
“There is no intelligible differentia for treating Medical Teachers holding MBBS degrees differently from those holding BDS degrees.” – Division Bench in Dr. Ranjan Mathur case
The court in Dr. Ranjan Mathur had found that such classification violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It observed that both BDS and MBBS doctors perform similar duties, and many government departments like Railways and Defence Services had already equalized the superannuation age.
“The action of the respondents amounts to hostile discrimination… The notification dated 30.03.2018 is in clear violation of Article 14.” – Dr. Ranjan Mathur judgment
This position was upheld by the Supreme Court, which dismissed the State’s SLP (Special Leave Petition), solidifying the legal foundation for uniform retirement age across the dental and medical cadres.
Given the settled legal position, Justice Rekha Borana quashed the impugned order dated 06.03.2025/12.03.2025 and allowed the petition. The Court directed that Dr. Renu Kala Mathur be permitted to serve until the age of 62 years.
“The petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service till she attains the age of 62 years. Necessary orders be passed within two weeks.” – Justice Rekha Borana
The High Court reiterated that the judgment in Dr. Sarvesh Pradhan is a judgment in rem, meaning it is applicable to all similarly placed individuals, not just the parties involved.
Despite this, the State had not issued any general instructions or circulars, forcing individual Medical Officers to approach the Court for the same relief.
“The respondent State Authorities have failed to pass appropriate directions for compliance of the said judgment passed in rem.” – Justice Rekha Borana
The judgment also quoted another decision in Naresh Singhal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6372/2024), reinforcing the importance of applying finalized legal decisions to all affected individuals:
“Justice is not a saleable commodity. The State Authorities cannot be allowed to compel the aggrieved persons to approach the Court of Law and get the same order… The ‘doctrine of finality of judgment’ is applicable in such matters.” – Naresh Singhal judgment
In view of the repeated litigation and legal clarity, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the State:
“It is expected of the respondent State Authorities to issue an appropriate circular/notification reflecting the fact of the age of superannuation of the Medical Officers holding BDS/MBBS degree to be 62 years with immediate effect.”
“It is further expected… to issue a common notice/circular on their official website to the said purpose so that none of the aggrieved persons is required to knock the doors of the Court again and again.” – Justice Rekha Borana
Title: Dr. Renu Kala Mathur v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Ms. Abhilash Bora
Counsel for Respondent(s): Ms. Rakhi Choudhary, for Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG