The Delhi High Court on 6 May dismissed a petition seeking to raise the retirement age of doctors and medical officers serving in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) and Border Roads Organisation (BRO) from 60 years to 65 years, ruling that the fixation of superannuation age is a policy matter squarely within the executive domain and not subject to judicial override.

What the Court Ruled

A division bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora declined to interfere with the Ministry of Defence's 3 July 2023 order rejecting the demand for retirement age enhancement. The bench held that it must be presumed the executive had "weighed all the pros and cons" before declining the extension, and that courts should be "slow and circumspect" in granting relief relating to continuation in service.

"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," the bench stated.

Background and the Petition

The plea was filed by Dr R.D. Thakur, a Medical Officer in GREF/BRO, challenging the Ministry of Defence's refusal to extend the superannuation age. Petitioner's counsel Ankur Chhibber argued that doctors across nearly all other Central government organisations — including Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Indian Railways — have already been granted retirement up to 65 years, and that denying similar treatment to GREF/BRO doctors amounted to a violation of the right to equality under the Constitution.

The petitioner further contended that the reasons cited by the authorities for rejecting the proposal were "totally frivolous" and did not withstand scrutiny. It was also argued that even low medical category officers are considered fit for service below certain altitudes, and that no Medical Officer in BRO is posted above 10,000 feet.

Centre's Defence

The Union government defended its decision, asserting that BRO projects are largely situated in remote and high-altitude areas where physical fitness and operational readiness are critical. It argued that personnel with higher age profiles or low medical categories cannot be deployed in high-altitude and hard areas owing to geographical and environmental constraints.

The Centre further contended that raising the retirement age to 65 years would create difficulties in postings across remote operational zones and would delay promotional avenues for younger Medical Officers, resulting in cadre stagnation.

Court's Final Observations

Citing a Supreme Court precedent, the Delhi HC reiterated that the age of superannuation is governed by statutory rules and service conditions. The bench noted that the respondents had furnished reasons for not enhancing the retirement age and that those reasons were not "ex facie arbitrary or perverse", leaving no ground for judicial interference.

Finding no merit in the petition, the court dismissed it. The ruling underscores the judiciary's consistent position that service conditions, including retirement age, remain the prerogative of the executive unless they are demonstrably arbitrary — a threshold the petitioner could not meet in this case.