The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a medical officer of the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) seeking enhancement of the retirement age of doctors in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) from 60 years to 65 years.
The court held that fixing the age of retirement is a policy decision that falls within the executive’s domain and courts cannot ordinarily interfere unless the decision is clearly arbitrary.
Background of the Case
Petitioner Dr. R.D. Thakur, serving as a Civilian Medical Officer in GREF/BRO, challenged a government order dated July 3, 2023, which rejected the demand for increasing the retirement age of BRO doctors.
The plea argued that doctors in several other central government organisations - including Central Armed Police Forces, Railways, AYUSH services and Armed Forces medical services - had already been granted retirement up to 65 years.
Read also:- Supreme Court Converts Three-Month Suspension of Senior Pediatrician Into Warning in MCI Declaration Case
According to the petitioner, excluding doctors working in GREF/BRO from the benefit was discriminatory and violated the principle of equality.
The Ministry of Defence opposed the petition and defended the decision to retain the retirement age at 60 years.
The government told the court that BRO projects are mostly located in remote and high-altitude regions where physically fit medical officers are required. It argued that officers above a certain age or those in lower medical categories face posting restrictions in difficult terrains.
The authorities also submitted that increasing the retirement age could block promotional opportunities for younger officers and lead to stagnation within the cadre.
The bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that although doctors in many government departments now retire at 65 years, the BRO medical cadre had been treated differently due to operational requirements.
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana HC Says FIR Quashing Cannot Be Shortcut After Anticipatory Bail Rejection in Fraud Case
The court observed,
“It is well settled position of law that the age of retirement is purely policy matter which lies within the domain of the executive.”
The judges further said the reasons cited by the government could not be termed “ex facie arbitrary or perverse.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, the High Court said courts should not decide retirement age issues merely on the basis of parity with other services.
The bench also clarified that judicial review in service matters is limited when the issue concerns government policy unless there is a clear constitutional violation.
Dismissing the petition, the Delhi High Court held that it could not direct the government to enhance the retirement age of BRO doctors from 60 to 65 years.
The court concluded that the executive had provided valid administrative reasons for maintaining the existing retirement policy and no ground for judicial interference was made out.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr R D Thakur vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13189/2023
Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Decision Date: May 4, 2026
