Synopsis

The petitioner, a medical officer in the General Reserve Engineering Force/Border Roads Organisation (GREF/BRO), sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enhance the superannuation age of doctors in GREF/BRO from 60 years to 65 years, on the ground that such enhancement had been granted to doctors in various other central government organisations (CAPF, Railways, etc.). The respondents denied the request citing administrative constraints, high-altitude postings, and stagnation of younger officers. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the age of retirement is a matter of policy within the executive domain, and courts will not interfere unless the decision is ex facie arbitrary or perverse. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in CCRAS v. Bikartan Das, the court held that it is not for the judiciary to fix the age of superannuation.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 4th May 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 13189/2023 (2026:DHC:3745-DB)

Core Law: Service Law – Superannuation age; Constitutional Law – Article 226; Separation of powers – Policy matters not amenable to judicial review.

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

W.p.(c) 13189 of 2023

Dr. r. d. thakur (petitioner) vs. Union of india & ors (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice v. kameswar rao and hon’ble ms. justice manmeet pritam singh arora (division bench)

Date: 4th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.