No Doctor Has Vested Right to Continue Beyond 62 in Administrative Role: Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Rule 56(bb) Amendment on CHS Superannuation

“Continuation beyond 62 years is a conditional policy decision, not a vested right or extension of normal service”: In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for doctors serving under the Central Health Service (CHS), the Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the amended Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules, which restricts continuation of CHS doctors beyond the age of 62 years strictly to non-administrative roles. The Court ruled that superannuation at 62 years remains the norm, and any continuation beyond that age is “conditional and enabling”, not a matter of right.

The decision came in a batch of five writ petitions , challenging the Notification dated 11.08.2018, by which the Government revised Rule 56(bb), stipulating that continuation in service up to 65 years would be confined to teaching, clinical, patient care, public health, and advisory functions, thereby excluding administrative responsibilities post 62 years.

The Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the Tribunal's earlier decision and endorsing the Government's stand that such policy regulation was within the permissible domain of administrative discretion and did not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.

“Rule 56(bb) Sets 62 as the Retirement Norm — 65 is a Conditional Option, Not a Right”

At the core of the Court's reasoning was the clear statutory scheme under Rule 56(bb). Interpreting the 2018 amendment, the Court observed:

“Superannuation at the age of 62 years is the norm. Continuation beyond that age is not automatic or unconditional; it is contingent upon the exercise of an option and acceptance of posting in the functional domains specified in the rule.”

Rejecting the petitioners’ contention that the 2016 Notification had unconditionally extended retirement to 65 years, the Court held that the 2018 amendment validly restructured the scheme in public interest and did not violate any accrued or vested rights. The Judges emphasized:

“When the language of a statutory rule is clear and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to its plain meaning… Continuation up to 65 years is conditional and confined to specified functional roles.”

No Reduction in Rank – Administrative Charge Is a Duty, Not a Substantive Right

A critical ground urged by the petitioners was that excluding administrative posts post-62 amounted to a “reduction in rank”, or an arbitrary alteration of service conditions. The Court firmly rejected this claim, holding that:

“Administrative charge is an assignment of duties and not a substantive rank. 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 extended tenure.”

The Court reaffirmed that continuation in administrative assignments beyond superannuation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the nature of duties post-retirement can be lawfully regulated:

“A change in duties, consistent with the governing rule, does not ipso facto amount to reduction in rank.”

“Government Servants Do Not Have Vested Rights in Retirement Policy”

One of the foundational challenges to the amendment was the claim of a “vested right” created by the 2016 Notification. This was unequivocally rejected by the Bench, which held:

“It is well settled that a Government servant has no vested right in the age of superannuation as such. The age of retirement is a condition of service which may be altered by the competent rule-making authority.”

Noting that Rule 56(bb) was amended under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Court reiterated that the State has the power to alter service conditions in public interest:

“Even assuming that the Notification dated 31.05.2016 enhanced the age of superannuation to 65 years, the same was effected by amendment… The Petitioners cannot claim a vested right in the continuance of a particular statutory regime.”

Policy, Not Discrimination – Article 14 and 16 Challenges Rejected

The petitioners had also contended that the amended rule discriminated between CHS doctors and their counterparts in the CAPFs, Assam Rifles, AIIMS and other institutions, who were allegedly allowed to continue in administrative posts till 65.

Rejecting the Article 14 and 16 challenges, the Court observed:

“The proviso to clause (bb) expressly stipulates that the age of superannuation in respect of doctors belonging to the GDMO sub-cadre of CAPFs and Assam Rifles shall be sixty-five years. This constitutes a distinct class carved out by the rule itself.”

The Court found no hostile discrimination, holding that reasonable classification is constitutionally permissible, and:

“Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment does not extend to claiming continuation in service contrary to statutory prescription.”

“Promotion Not a Right Post-Superannuation” – No Claim to HAG After 62

An ancillary but significant issue raised by the petitioners was their exclusion from the seniority list for promotion to Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) after 62. The Court dismissed this argument, clarifying:

“Where the governing rule treats 62 years as the normal age of superannuation… promotional progression within the administrative hierarchy cannot be claimed as of right during such conditional extended tenure.”

Noting that continuation beyond 62 is not a continuation of normal service, but a special engagement in specific functional roles, the Court held:

“The absence of promotional avenues during a conditional extension cannot be equated with deprivation of a vested promotional right.”

Court Reiterates Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Service Policy

In a final reaffirmation of the principles governing judicial review in service matters, the Division Bench ruled:

“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.”

Accordingly, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s judgment dated 14.08.2019, holding that it suffered from no “factual or legal infirmity”, and dismissed all five writ petitions.

This landmark judgment settles a long-standing controversy on the continuation of CHS doctors in administrative roles post-62 and affirms the Government’s power to regulate post-superannuation service in public interest. By holding that “no doctor has a vested right to hold administrative posts beyond 62 years,” the Court has drawn a clear distinction between tenure of service and nature of assignment, reiterating that retirement age enhancement is not a right but a policy privilege.

Date of Decision: 10 February 2026