New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside an Orissa High Court order for extending superannuation age to 65 years of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) research assistant equivalent to AYUSH doctors, saying it is “not sustainable in law”.
On December 17, 2020, the division bench of Justice Sanju Panda (then judge) and Justice S K Panigrahi, while hearing a petition filed by Dr Bikartan Das challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order against extension of his superannuation age to 65 years, found that though the respondent was functioning as researcher under the Research Council/ National Institute, but as a requirement for upgrading the research skill, also treated patients in the out-patient and in-patient departments, like AYUSH doctors on regular basis. “Therefore, Clause-34 and 35 of the bye-laws was held to be applicable to the respondent herein, and to be treated as AYUSH doctor, even though he has been appointed as a Researcher.”
The division bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala on August 16, however, observed that “high court misdirected itself saying that the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation can also be granted if the duties performed are the same like Ayush doctors.”
“We fail to understand how can the court fix the age of superannuation of an employee saying that he is very much devoted towards his job. The age of superannuation is always governed by statutory rules & other service conditions.”
While stating that the “the entire approach was incorrect”, the SC expressed disappointment over the casual manner in which the present litigation was dealt with by the HC and objected to the interim relief extending the period of service beyond 60 years, till the disposal of petition by the CAT, granted by it. “By virtue of such interim order which the high court ordinarily should not grant, Dr Das although was to retire in 2018, yet continued in service till 2021. It is only when this court stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the high court while issuing notice, that his service came to an end.”
“The court or the tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect in granting interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior,” the SC bench cautioned.
