LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Ram Naresh Sharma

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 376Decided 3 Aug 2021
Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2021
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice Hrishikesh Roy

Background

In 2016, the Central Government raised the retirement age for allopathic ("regular" Western-medicine) doctors in government service from 60 to 65 years, but initially did not extend the same benefit to AYUSH doctors (those practising Ayurveda, Unani, and similar systems) working in the same municipal corporations. A group of AYUSH doctors challenged this as discriminatory before a government tribunal and won, with courts directing that they too be allowed to continue working until 65 and be paid for that extra service. The Ministry later extended the same retirement-age benefit to AYUSH doctors too, but only effective from a later date (27.09.2017), creating a gap period during which some AYUSH doctors had kept working (often under court interim orders) without being paid. The municipal corporations appealed, arguing they should not have to pay full back wages for this gap period.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court dismissed the municipal corporations' appeals and upheld the doctors' right to full back pay. It held that treating AYUSH doctors differently from allopathic doctors purely based on their system of medicine was an unreasonable and discriminatory classification violating Article 14 of the Constitution, since both groups performed the same core function of treating patients. Invoking the legal principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of the court should harm no one), the Court held that doctors who had continued serving patients under interim court orders could not be denied salary for that genuine work, and that the AYUSH Ministry's 2017 order extending the retirement age should be applied retrospectively from the original 2016 notification date. The doctors were awarded full salary arrears, to be paid within 8 weeks, with 6% interest for any delay.

Lesson Learnt

Government employees doing the same essential job cannot be denied equal service benefits, such as retirement age or pay, merely because they belong to a differently labelled category or discipline; and employees who keep working under a court's interim protection are entitled to be paid for that work once the case is finally decided in their favour.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case