2018 (11) TMI 1951 - HC - Indian Laws

Enhancement of retirement age of the respondent to 65 years - HELD THAT - The retirement age of the respondent-who is a dental surgeon and was serving as Staff Surgeon in Non-Functional selection grade under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, was 60 years. He was aggrieved by the fact that though the Central Government had raised the retirement age of Allopathic doctors (General Duty Medical Officers(GDMOs)) of the Central Health Service (CHS) vide order dated 31.05.2016 to 65 years, the age of retirement of the respondent was not similarly raised and it continued to remain as 60 years. Since the Government itself has subsequently raised the retirement age of dental doctors to 65 years, there is no justification to deny the said relief to the respondent. Therefore, without going into the merits of the arguments sought to be advanced by the Union of India, on equitable considerations, the impugned order is not interfered in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case the respondent continued to serve the petitioner even after attaining the age of 60 years, and he continues to do so, the petitioner is directed to make payment of arrears of salary and allowances to the respondent within four weeks from today, and to continue to pay his salary and other allowances in future till the respondent superannuates at the age of 65 years. However, it is made clear that the respondent shall not be assigned any administrative duties in terms of the Governmental decision.

Summary

Issues:
1. Retirement age enhancement for a dental surgeon serving as Staff Surgeon.
2. Discrepancy in retirement age compared to Allopathic doctors.
3. Tribunal's decision to enhance retirement age to 65 years.
4. Government's subsequent decision to raise retirement age for dental doctors.
5. Justification for denying relief to the respondent.
6. Dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court.
7. Direction for payment of arrears and future salary to the respondent.

Retirement Age Enhancement for a Dental Surgeon Serving as Staff Surgeon:
The case involves a writ petition by the Union of India challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order enhancing the retirement age of a dental surgeon, who was a Staff Surgeon, to 65 years. The respondent's retirement order at 60 years was set aside by the Tribunal.

Discrepancy in Retirement Age Compared to Allopathic Doctors:
The respondent, a dental surgeon serving under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, was aggrieved by the fact that while the retirement age of Allopathic doctors was raised to 65 years, his retirement age remained at 60 years. This discrepancy led to the original application and subsequent Tribunal decision.

Tribunal's Decision to Enhance Retirement Age to 65 Years:
The Tribunal allowed the respondent's application and increased his retirement age to 65 years, citing the disparity between the retirement age of the respondent and Allopathic doctors. This decision was challenged by the Union of India through the writ petition.

Government's Subsequent Decision to Raise Retirement Age for Dental Doctors:
After the filing of the writ petition, the Government decided to enhance the retirement age of dental doctors to 65 years. This decision was taken on equitable grounds, aligning with the enhanced retirement age for Allopathic doctors.

Justification for Denying Relief to the Respondent:
The High Court, considering the subsequent decision of the Government to raise the retirement age of dental doctors, found no justification to deny the same relief to the respondent. The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision based on equitable considerations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Dismissal of the Writ Petition by the High Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that since the Government had already raised the retirement age of dental doctors to 65 years, there was no need to challenge the Tribunal's decision. The Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction and upheld the Tribunal's order.

Direction for Payment of Arrears and Future Salary to the Respondent:
The High Court directed the petitioner to pay arrears of salary and allowances to the respondent within four weeks and continue to pay his salary and allowances until he superannuates at the age of 65 years. However, it was clarified that the respondent would not be assigned any administrative duties as per the Government's decision.