Retirement Age Can't Be Increased Based On Superannuation Age In Another Similar Post : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that the age of superannuation for employees is determined solely by statutory rules. It held that even if two job positions share similar tasks, this similarity does not warrant altering an employee's service conditions(Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das).

The Supreme Court held, “The age of superannuation is always governed by the statutory rules governing appointment on a particular post. Hence, even if it is averred that the nature of work involved in the two posts is similar, the same cannot be a ground to increase or alter the service conditions of an employee as each post is governed by its own set of rules.”

While setting aside a judgment of the Orissa High Court, the Supreme Court raised questions about the authority of the Court in setting an employee's superannuation age based on their dedication to their job.

The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala stated, “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.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala was hearing an appeal by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), Ministry of AYUSH against an Orissa High Court judgment which held that the respondent(an employee of CCRAS) is entitled to the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years as applicable to the AYUSH doctors working under the Ministry of AYUSH.

The Court took into consideration Clauses 25(b), 34, 35 and 47 of 30 the Bye-Laws in the Memorandum of Association of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences for adjudicating the matter.

The Court emphasized that Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws holds a specific provision regarding superannuation. As a result, the rules governing government services with respect to superannuation do not automatically apply to Council employees.

The Court noted that the governing body of the Council, in line with Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws, had previously determined the superannuation age to be 60 years as of December 1, 1998.

The Supreme Court observed “As there is a specific provision regarding superannuation in Clause 34, the rules governing the government services in respect of superannuation are not applicable to the employees of the Council unless it is in accordance with Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws. In terms of Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws, the governing body had decided the age of superannuation to be 60 years on 01.12.1998.

The Court also dissected the phrasing used in clause 34 of the byelaws which deals with “Superannuation”.

Superannuation 34- The rules governing the retirement of employees of the Government of India as amended from time to time or as desired by the Governing Body shall apply to the employees of the Central Council.

The Court emphasized the significance of the disjunctive word "or"- this separation signifies that the Council possesses the autonomy to define superannuation rules distinct from those laid down by the government.

Moving forward, the Court underlined that the issue of setting the age of superannuation is essentially a matter of policy-making. While the Court acknowledged its role in ensuring that policy decisions are not arbitrary, it emphasized that the prerogative to establish superannuation age policies lies with the relevant authorities.

Finally, the court concluded that merely because the respondent has treated patients in IPD and OPD departments does not automatically grant him the right to demand parity in superannuation age with AYUSH doctors. The Court opined“ His service conditions and mode of recruitment are different compared to the AYUSH Doctors. It is a different thing that he might have treated the patients but that by itself would not entitle him to claim that his age of superannuation should be at par with the AYUSH Doctors”.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The respondent is an employee of CCRAS having joined as a Research Assistant and his terms of service were governed under the Rules of CCRAS.

On 27.09.2017, the Union Cabinet took a decision to enhance the age of superannuation up to 65 years for the AYUSH doctors working under the Ministry of AYUSH.

However, after a month, it was clarified that the decision to enhance the age of superannuation up to 65 years would not be applicable to the autonomous bodies functioning under the Ministry of AYUSH. By letter dated 25.01.2018, the appellant Council also circulated the clarification letter issued by the Ministry of AYUSH

The respondent made representation to the appellant seeking to increase his superannuation age to 65 years which was rejected. He approached CAT, Cuttack Bench which rejected any such claim of parity. Aggrieved by the same, he approached HC which allowed the respondent’s petition.

The HC held that “He used to treat patients like AYUSH doctors in the Out-Patient Departments (OPDs) and In-Patient Departments (IPDs) on a regular basis and the duty and devotion exhibited by respondent No. 1 in treating the OPD and IPD patients would entitle him to claim the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation i.e., up to 65 years.”

Against this decision, the Council approached the Supreme Court.

Case title: Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 692

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment