Specialists challenge the age rule in the Court of Appeal.

In a writ petition filed before the Court of Appeal, about 176 consultant specialists have challenged the government's decision to reduce their compulsory retirement age to 60 years.

The petitioners are specialists in varied fields of medicine, including cardiology, cardio-thoracic surgery, oncology, neurology, obstetrics and gynaecology, haematology, opthalmology, histopathology, anaesthesia, pediatrics, and auto-rhinolaryngology.

When this petition came up before the Court of Appeal, a two-judge bench comprised of Justice Sobitha Rajakaruna and Justice Dhammika Ganepola issued notices to the respondents, including the Cabinet of Ministers, the Minister of Health, and the Director General of Health Services, returnable for December 13. The notices were issued to the respondents on the basis that a prima facie case had been established by the petitioners to proceed with the case.

President's Counsel Sanjeeva Jayawardena, appearing for the petitioners, submitted to the court that the petitioners, the specialist doctors, have challenged the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers dated October 17, 2022, since this decision has been made illegally and in complete violation of their legitimate expectation to continue in service at least until 63 years of age.

The petitioners contend that, as consultant specialists, they have been guaranteed a defined compulsory retirement age of 63 years by both Cabinet Decisions and the Amendment to the Minute on Pensions with effect from 6.6.2017, and that they have thus been clearly identified as a separate category, distinct from other employee categories.

public officers in general, and that this status and legitimate expectation had been continuing for a period of 5 years, from 2017 up to 2022.

Sanjeeva Jayawardena, PC, with Counsel Lakmini Warusevitane, and Dr. Milhan Mohamed appeared for the petitioners. Uditha Egalahewa PC and Manohara De Silva PC appeared for seven other petitioners.