2020 (6) TMI 832 - SC - Indian Laws

Enhancement of age of superannuation of General Duty Medical Officers and specialists working in the Central Government and its allied institutions to sixty-five years - HELD THAT - The appellant moved an application for recall of the order on which as we have noted earlier the High Court directed that the first respondent should be paid salary for the period for which she was working. The fundamental objection of the appellant to the direction of the High Court is that though the first respondent has failed before the Tribunal the High Court has at the interim stage virtually allowed the writ petition. There are merit in the submission. The High Court was not justified in issuing the first interim direction that it did on 12 September 2018 which was followed by the subsequent interim order dated 23 January 2020 effectively granting the final relief at the interim stage. The correctness of the order of the Tribunal declining relief is yet to be determined by the High Court. Since the proceedings are pending before the High Court we have not embarked upon the merits of the case which is set up by the first respondent before the High Court. We however find that the interim orders of the High Court virtually amount to the grant of final relief and ought not to have been passed. The impugned interim orders dated 12 September 2018 and 23 January 2020 is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Applicability of the decision to enhance the age of superannuation to sixty-five years to certain individuals.
- Validity of interim orders passed by the High Court.
- Justifiability of directing an employee to work without salary.
- Proper course of action regarding reinstatement at the interim stage.
- Merits of the High Court's directions and implications on final relief.
- Clarification on the entitlement to salary for work performed beyond the age of sixty years.
- Setting aside of impugned interim orders and keeping rights and contentions open for the High Court to decide.

Analysis:
1. Applicability of Age Enhancement Decision:
The central issue revolved around the applicability of the Government's decision to increase the retirement age to sixty-five years to a Research Officer who performed medical duties. The respondent argued for the extension of retirement benefits, while the appellant contended that autonomous institutions were exempt. The High Court's interim orders directed payment for work done post-retirement age, pending the writ petition.

2. Validity of High Court's Interim Orders:
The Additional Solicitor General challenged the High Court's interim orders, arguing that reinstating the respondent without salary was improper. The court noted that directing an employee to work without pay was unfair. The High Court's actions were questioned, especially considering the dismissal of the respondent's OA by the Tribunal.

3. Proper Course of Action:
The High Court's decision to continue the respondent in service without salary raised concerns. The appellant sought a recall of the order, emphasizing that the High Court virtually allowed the writ petition at the interim stage. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's objection, emphasizing that final relief should not be granted at the interim stage.

4. Clarification on Entitlement to Salary:
The Supreme Court vacated the High Court's interim orders and clarified that the respondent would be entitled to salary for work performed beyond the age of sixty years if verified during the final hearing. The Court urged the High Court to expedite the writ petition's disposal while keeping the parties' rights and contentions open for further arguments.

5. Final Disposition:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned interim orders. The Court emphasized the need for the High Court to thoroughly examine the work done by the respondent post-retirement age to determine the entitlement to salary. The parties were directed to present their arguments before the High Court, which was urged to expedite the case's resolution.