CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR. versus BIKARTAN DAS & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 731 · Decided: 16-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC 
SCIENCES & ANR.
v.
BIKARTAN DAS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023)
AUGUST 16, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND 
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court, if erred in setting aside the order 
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and holding that respondent 
No.1 was entitled to the benefi t of enhancement of retirement age from 60 
to 65 years as applicable to the AYUSH doctors working under the Ministry 
of AYUSH.
Service Law – Grant of benefi t of enhancement of retirement age 
– Unsustainability:
Held: Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Research Assistant by the 
appellant-Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) 
and was functioning as a Researcher under the Research Council and his 
service conditions were also diff erent compared to the AYUSH doctors 
serving with the Ministry of AYUSH – Appellant-Council is a registered 
autonomous body and is administratively controlled by the Ministry of 
AYUSH, Government of India – The recruitment rules, procedure and the 
service conditions of its employees are governed by the Bye-Laws and 
Memorandum of Association of the Council – High Court misdirected itself 
saying that the benefi t of enhanced age of superannuation can also be granted 
if the duties performed are the same like AYUSH doctors – Governing body 
of the Council is not obliged to take a decision in tune with the decision 
of the Ministry of AYUSH regarding superannuation more particularly 
having made it clear that enhancement of retirement age is not applicable 
[2023] 11 S.C.R. 731 : 2023 INSC 733
731
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
to an autonomous body like CCRAS – 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 – Impugned order not sustainable, set aside – Society Registration 
Act, 1860. [Paras 23, 34, 44 and 48]
Service Law – Interim relief for continuation in service granted 
– Impropriety:
Held: Court or the Tribunal should 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 benefi t of extended service and caused injustice to his immediate 
junior – In the present case, High Court went to the extent of granting interim 
relief extending the period of service beyond 60 years till the disposal of 
the Original Petition by the CAT – By virtue of such interim order which 
the High Court ordinarily should not grant, the respondent No. 1 although 
was to retire in 2018 yet continued in service till 2021 – It is only when 
Supreme Court stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the 
High Court while issuing notice that the service of the respondent No.1 
came to an end. [Para 48]
Service Law – Memorandum of Association of the Central Council 
for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences – Bye-Laws – Clauses 25(b), 34, 35 
and 47 – Plea of respondent No.1 was that the provisions of FR 56(bb) 
would apply to him in his capacity as an employee of the Council in view 
of Clause 35, Bye-Laws of the Council by which the provisions of the FR 
and SR would apply to the employees of the Council mutatis mutandis:
Held: Clauses 25(b), 34, 35 and 47 of the Bye-Laws in the Memorandum 
of Association indicate that the employees are recruited through a selection 
committee of the Council – It further indicates that the Fundamental Rules, 
1922 will have no direct application in cases where the governing body 
fi nalises the rules of superannuation – 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 said decision was ratifi ed on 27.01.2000 - CAT rightly 
733
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC 
SCIENCES v. BIKARTAN DAS 
took the view that the plea canvassed on behalf of the respondent No.1 that 
the Council failed to consider the Clause 35 of the Bye-Laws which states 
that the FR, Supplementary Rule (SR) and General Financial Rules (GFR) 
as amended from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.