# CASE DETAILS CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR v. BIKARTAN DAS & ORS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 733
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-08-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-central-council-for-research-in-ayurvedic-sciences-anr-v-bikartan-36525
- **Pages:** 58

## Headnote

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 beh

## Text

_Characters 0–39,890 of 125,890. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39890 for what follows._

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 employees
of the Council, was without any merit and deserved to be rejected - CAT
rightly rejected such argument because the applicability would be subject
to the provision specifi c to the Clause 34 governing superannuation of the
employees of the Council - There is nothing in Clause 35 of the Bye-Laws
on the basis of which, it could be said that the same will have an overriding
eff ect on Clause 34 as regards the age of retirement - Clause 47 of the ByeLaws makes it abundantly clear that for the matters not specifi cally provided
in the Bye-Laws, the rules applicable to the government employees would
apply - However, as there is a specifi c 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 - Fundamental Rules,
1922. [Paras 25, 28 and 29]
Words and Phrases - "or", "and" - Interpretation - Plea of
respondent No.1 that clause 34 of the Bye-Laws should be read in two
parts- the fi rst part states that the Rules governing the retirement of
employees of the Government of India as amended from time to time
would apply to the employees of the Central Council; the second part
of Clause 34 which reads "or as desired by the governing body" is
merely an enabling provision empowering the governing body to take
a decision whether an employee deserves to be retained beyond the
prescribed age of superannuation and that such power should not be
read in a negative form to clothe the governing body with the power to
prescribe lesser age of superannuation than what has been prescribed
by the Central Government from time to time:
Held: Such argument cannot be accepted - The word "or" is normally
disjunctive and the word "and" is normally conjunctive - Both of them
can be read as vice-versa, but that interpretation is adopted only where the
intention of the legislature is manifest - In the present case, the language of
Clause 34 is very clear. What is important to note while reading the Clause
34 is the word "or" - Thereafter, there is a proviso which says that an
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
employee can be retained in service after prescribed age of superannuation
if he continues to be physically fi t and effi cient and it is in the interest of
the Central Counsel to retain him in the service - The expression "the rules
governing the retirement of employees of Government of India as amended
from time to time" is separated from the rest of the part of the Bye-Law by the
word "or" which is disjunctive and giving natural meaning to the said word
separates the rules that may be framed by the Government of India and the
rules that the Council may desire to frame as regards the age of retirement
of the employees of the Council - Interpretation of Statutes. [Paras 30-32]
Service Law - Age of retirement vis-à-vis service conditions
relating to pay and allowances and revision of pay - Respondent
No.1 contended that as the terms and conditions of the services of the
employees of the Council on all other aspects like the Provident Fund/
GPF, Pension, Gratuity, Leave Rules, Scales of Pay, Conduct Rules and
other conditions of services are the same as applicable to the employees
of the Central Government as set out in Clauses 31, 32, 33, 42, 44 and
47 respectively of the Bye-Laws, the matter of age of superannuation
of the respondent No. 1 should not be treated diff erently:
Held: What should be the age of superannuation is a matter of policy
- It is not within the domain of the court to legislate - It is only if a policy
decision or a notifi cation is arbitrary it may invite the frowns of Article 14
of the Constitution - The question of age of retirement stands on a diff erent
footing from the service conditions relating to pay and allowances and
revision of pay. [Para 35]
Service Law - Claim of respondent No.1-Research Assistant
that his age of superannuation be at par with the AYUSH Doctors -
Infringement of Article 14 alleged:
Held: It is too late in the day for the respondent No.1 to raise all
such issues including infringement of Article 14 on the ground of artifi cial
distinction between the Research Assistant and AYUSH Doctors -
Respondent No.1 knew from the date of his appointment that he was being
appointed as a Research Assistant - His service conditions and mode of
recruitment are diff erent compared to the AYUSH Doctors - It is a diff erent
thing that he might have treated the patients but that by itself would not
735
entitle him to claim that his age of superannuation should be at par with the
AYUSH Doctors - Present case is not one of discrimination - Article 14 has
no application having regard to the facts of the present case - Constitution
of India - Article 14. [Paras 37 and 39]
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Extraordinary jurisdiction
- Principles of law governing - Issue of Writ of certiorari - Discussed.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and
Others 2021 SCC Online SC 540 - held not applicable.
Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine v. Dr. Salma Khatoon
and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1332; V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan and
Others (1996) 3 SCC 454 : [1996] 3 SCR 480; Census Commissioner and
Others v. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC 796 : [2014] 11 SCR 463; State of
Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Rajesh Chander Sood and Others (2016)
10 SCC 77 : [2016] 6 SCR 851; T.M. Sampath and Others v. Secretary
Ministry of Water Resources and Others (2015) 5 SCC 333 : [2015] 1 SCR
748; State of Maharashtra and Another v. Bhagwan and Others (2022)
4 SCC 193; Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General
Subordinate Services Association and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Others (1980) 3 SCC 97 : [1980] 1 SCR 1026; State of Bihar and Another
v. Teachers' Association of Govt. Engineering College and Others (2000)
10 SCC 527; Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Associations v. State
of Kerala and Others AIR 2018 SC 2652 : [2018] 6 SCR 1139; Union of
India and Others v. Lieut (Mrs) E. Iacats (1997) 7 SCC 334; New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority and Another v. B D Singhal and Others
AIR 2021 SC 3457; T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another AIR 1954
SC 440 : [1955] SCR 250; Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others
AIR 1964 SC 477 : [1964] SCR 64; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chandra Rai and
Others (2003) 6 SCC 675 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 290; Hari Vishnu Kamath
v. Ahmad Ishaque and Others AIR 1955 SC 233 : [1955] SCR 1104; K.M.
Shanmugam v. The S.R.V.S. (P) Ltd. and Others AIR 1963 SC 1626 : [1964]
SCR 809; Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others v. Mallikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC 137 : [1960] SCR 890; Indian Overseas
Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Another AIR 2000 SC
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC
SCIENCES v. BIKARTAN DAS
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
1508 : [2000] 2 SCR 1212; Ebrahim Aboobakar and Hawabai Aboobakar
v. The Custodian General of Evacuee Property, New Delhi (1952) 1 SCC
798; Parry and Company Limited v. Commercial Employees' Association,
Madras and Another (1952) 1 SCC 449 : AIR 1952 SC 179 : [1952] SCR
519; Rai Brij Raj Krishna and Another v. Messrs S.K. Shaw and Brothers,
AIR 1951 SC 115 : [1951] SCR 145; G. Veerappa Pillai v. Messrs Raman
and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others (1952) 1 SCC
334 - referred to.
Justice G.P. Singh in the Principles of Statutory Interpretation
(Thirteenth Edition 2012) page 485 - referred to.
Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission and Another
(1969) 2 AC 147; King v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd. (1922) 2 AC 128 (PC);
Colonial Bank of Australasia v. Willan (1874) LR 5 PC 417; R. v. Brighton
and Area Rent Tribunal (1950) 1 All England Reporter 946 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3339 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2020 of the High Court of
Orissa at Cuttack in WPC No. 30620 of 2020.
Appearances:
Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv., Harish Pandey, Adv. for the Appellants.
K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Col. R. Bala, Sr. Adv., Naresh Kumar, Gurmeet
Singh Makker, Kanu Agrawal, Kush Chaturvedi, Ketan Paul, Madhav
Sinhal, Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Yogesh Kumar Mahur, Harkesh Prashar,
Ronak Karanpuria, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is at the instance of the Central Council
for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga
737
and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH), Government
of India (appellant No. 1) and its Director General (appellant No. 2). The
two appellants before us were the original respondents before the High
Court of Orissa. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 17.12.2020 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in W.P. (C)
No. 30620 of 2020 by which the High Court allowed the writ application
fi led by the original petitioner (respondent No. 1) before us, setting aside the
order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack and thereby holding that the respondent No. 1 herein, namely, Dr.
Bikartan Das is 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.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The respondent No. 1 herein was appointed by the Council as a
Research Assistant w.e.f. 07.10.1985. The Offi ce Order No. 183 of 1985
dated 11.10.1985 reads thus:
"No. P.1-67/86-CRIA/DDSR/Estt./748(5) Dt 11.10.85
OFFICE ORDER No. 183/85
Dr. Bikartan Das is appointed as a Research Assistant (AY) with
eff ect from the forenoon of the 7th October, 1985 until further orders
in the Central Research Institute (AY), Unit, Bhubaneshwar-9. He
will be on probation for a period of two years from this date. He will
draw a basic pay of Rs. 425/- per month in the scale of Rs. 425-15-500
PB-15-560-20-700 with usual allowance admissible under the rules.
(Dr. PREM KISHORE )
 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (AY) I/C"
3. The Government of India in its Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare vide letter dated 01.12.1998 addressed to the Council, approved
the decision of the Council to enhance the benefi t of extension in age of
retirement from 58 years to 60 years in respect of employees of the Council
w.e.f. 31.05.1998 in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Department
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC
SCIENCES v. BIKARTAN DAS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
of Personnel and Training (DoPT) vide O.M. No. 25012/8/98-Estt. (A) dated
13.05.1998.
4. 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 (respondent No. 2 herein) and in the Central
Government Health Scheme (for short, 'the CGHS') Hospitals.
5. By way of letter dated 31.10.2017, the Ministry of AYUSH clarifi ed
that the eff ect of the Cabinet decision referred to above would be applicable
only to the AYUSH doctors directly working under the Ministry of AYUSH
and in the CGHS Hospitals. It was clarifi ed 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. The letter
dated 31.10.2017 addressed by the Ministry of AYUSH to the Director
General, CCRAS and CCRUM, reads thus:
"

FTS No. 32797/2017
Ministry of Ayurvedic, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha &
Homoeopathy (AYUSH)
(Research Desk)
'B' - Block, GPO Complex,
AYUSH Bhawan, Behind the INA Market,
New Delhi - 110023
Dated: 31st October, 2017
To

The Director General,

CCRAS and CCRUM

61-65, Institutional Area,

Opposite "D" Block,

Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058.
Subject: Enhancement of superannuation age to 65 years -reg.
Sir,
I am directed to say that the Ministry has been receiving a number
of representations from various offi cials of the Councils regarding
739
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC
SCIENCES v. BIKARTAN DAS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
enhancement of superannuation age to 65 years. It is stated that as per
Press Information Bureau the Union Cabinet has taken the following
decision:-
"The superannuation age has been enhanced to 65 years in
respect of doctors under the administrative control of the respective
Ministry/Department [M/o AYUSH (AYUSH Doctors), Department
of Defence (civilian doctors under Directorate General of Armed
Forces Medical Service), Department of Defence Production (Indian
Ordnance Factories Health Service Medical Offi cers), Dental Doctors
under D/o Health & Family Welfare, Dental doctors under Ministry of
Railways and of doctors working in Higher Education and Technical
Institutions under Department of Higher Education]".
2. The decision of the Cabinet is applicable to the AYUSH doctors
directly working under the administrative control of Ministry of AYUSH
i.e. AYUSH doctors working under CGHS. The decision of the Union
Cabinet is not applicable to autonomous bodies functioning under
Ministry of AYUSH i.e. Research Councils/National Institutes.
3. All such representations are therefore being sent to the respective
Councils. It is requested that the Councils may inform them accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
N. K. Lakhanpal
Senior Consultant"
6. By order dated 24.11.2017, the Ministry of AYUSH enhanced the
age of superannuation to 65 years for the AYUSH doctors working in the
Ministry of AYUSH and in CGHS Hospitals w.e.f. 27.09.2017. The order
dated 24.11.2017 reads thus:

"

F.NO. D.14019/4/2016-E-I(AYUSH)

 Government of India
Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and
Homoeopathy
 AYUSH Bhawan,
'B' Block, GPO Complex,
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
INA, New Delhi - 110023
Dated, the 24th November, 2017.
ORDER
The President is pleased to enhance the age of superannuation
of the AYUSH doctors under the Ministry of AYUSH and working in
CGHS Dispensaries/Hospitals to 65 years with eff ect from 27.09.2017,
i.e. the date of the approval of the Union Cabinet.
2. The doctors shall hold the administrative posts only till the date
of attaining the age of 62 years and thereafter their services shall be
placed in non-administrative positions.
(ROSHAN JAGGI)
Joint Secretary to the Government of India
Tel.24651953"
7. By notifi cation dated 05.01.2018, the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, DoPT notifi ed the Fundamental (Amendment)
Rules, 2018 whereby Rule 56(bb) in the Fundamental Rules, 1922 (FRs) was
substituted and the age of superannuation of AYUSH doctors was enhanced
to 65 years. The notifi cation reads thus:
"MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 5th January, 2018
G.S.R. 27(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso
to article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the
following rules further to amend the Fundamental Rules, 1922,
namely:-
(1) These rules may be called the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules,
2018.
(2) In the Fundamental Rules, 1922, in rule 56, for clause (bb), the
following shall be substituted, namely:-
741
"(bb) The age of superannuation in respect of General Duty Medical
Offi cers and Specialists included in Teaching, Non-Teaching and
Public Health sub-cadres of Central Health Service, AYUSH doctors,
Civilian doctors under Directorate General of Armed Forces Medical
Services, Medical offi cers of Indian Ordnance Factories Health
Services, dental doctors working under Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, doctors of Indian Railways Medical Service and dental
doctors under Ministry of Railways, doctors of General Duty Medical
Offi cers sub-cadre of Central Armed Police Forces and Assam Rifl es
and Specialist Medical offi cers of Central Armed Police Forces and
Assam Rifl es shall be sixty-fi ve years:
Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any other
rules, above doctors except in Central Armed Police Forces and Assam
Rifl es shall hold the administrative posts till the date of attaining the
age of sixty-two years and thereafter their services shall be placed in
Non-Administrative positions."
[F.No.25012/4/2016-Estt.(A-IV)]
GYANENDRA DEV TRIPATHI, Jt. Secy."
8. By letter dated 25.01.2018, the appellant Council circulated the
clarifi cation letter issued by the Ministry of AYUSH dated 31.10.2017
referred to in para 5 as above. The letter reads thus:
"F 3-8/2017-CCRAS/Vig/3094

 Dated: 25 JAN 2018
To
 All the Heads of Institutes/Centres/Units functioning

under this Council.
Sub: - Enhancement of superannuation age of 65 years.
Sir/Madam
The undersigned is directed to circulate herewith the clarifi cation
on the subject mentioned above received from Ministry of AYUSH
vide letter FTS No.32797/2017 dated 31.10.2017 for information.
The contents of Ministry's letter may be circulated among all offi cers
working under your control.
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC
SCIENCES v. BIKARTAN DAS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
 Yours faithfully
(SB MISRA)
Administrative Offi cer (Vigilance)
For Director General"
It is pertinent to note that the letter issued by the appellant Council
dated 25.01.2018 referred to above was never made a subject matter
of challenge.
9. The respondent No. 1 herein preferred a representation dated
22.03.2018 addressed to the appellant No. 2 herein with an appeal to enhance
his age of superannuation up to 65 years i.e., up to 30.04.2023 instead of
30.04.2018. It appears from the materials on record that the representation
preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein before the above was rejected and
a notifi cation dated 04.04.2018 was issued by the Council stating that the
respondent No. 1 herein would retire w.e.f. 30.04.2018 upon attaining the
superannuation age of 60 years. The notifi cation dated 04.04.2018 reads
thus:
"F. No. 26-3 / 2018-C.C.R.A.S. / Est. 17
Date: 04.04.2018
Notifi cation
It is hereby notifi ed that
Dr. Bikartan Das, Assistant Director (AYUSH), Central Ayurvedic
Research Institute for Hepatobiliary Disorder, Bhubaneswar is retiring
from Council service on attaining the age of superannuation at 60
years on 30.04.2018 (pm). His date of birth is 04.04.1958.
Accordingly, his name will be removed from the list of C.C.R.A.S.
Signature in English Illegible
R.K. Ahluwalia
Dated 27.03.2018
Dy. Director (Administration)
Through Director General"
743
10. The respondent No. 1 being dissatisfi ed with the aforesaid went
before the CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by way of Original Application
No. 210 of 2018 and prayed for the following reliefs:
"The Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to admit the
Original Application, call for the records and issue notice to the
Respondents and upon hearing the parties declare the impugned
letter of clarifi cation of Ministry of AYUSH dtd. 31.10.2017 as under
Annexure-4 Series and the letter dtd. 04.04.2018 under Annexure 3
directing the Applicant to retire on 30.04.2018 on attaining age of 60
years, to be illegal, arbitrary unreasonable and discriminatory and
quash the same and direct the Respondent to allow the Applicant to
continue in the service upto 65 years as per amended rules.

x

x

x
Pending fi nalization of the Original Application, the Applicant prays to
stay the order under Annexure-3 and allow the Applicant to continue
in the service."
11. By order dated 17.04.2018 the CAT issued notice, however,
declined to grant any interim relief as prayed for by the respondent No. 1
herein. As CAT declined to grant any interim relief and the respondent No.
1 was to retire on 30.04.2018, he went before the High Court of Orissa,
Cuttack by fi ling W. P. (C) No. 6663 of 2018 questioning the order passed
by the CAT declining to grant any interim relief. The High Court passed
the following order dated 25.04.2018:
"SI. No. of Order- 03
Date of Order- 25.04.2018
Heard Mr. B. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General.
This Writ Petition has been fi led by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/210/2018 wherein
the Tribunal while issuing notice directed the opposite parties to fi le
their reply on the interim prayers and regular counter.
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC
SCIENCES v. BIKARTAN DAS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
As it appears that the Central Government has taken a decision
under the Ministry of AYUSH to enhance the age of retirement of
the Doctors up to 65 years. However, so far as the petitioner is
concerned, since the notice of superannuation was issued to him, he
has approached the Tribunal. Since the Original Application is pending
before the Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, we dispose of this Writ Petition with an observation that since
the Doctors who are similarly after continuing the age of 65 years
after attaining the age of 60 years, let the Petitioner continue in the
service and let the notice of superannuation under Annexure-3 shall
remain stayed till disposal of the Original Application.
Mr. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that
the central government will fi le their counter within a period of two
weeks from today before the Tribunal, in such event the Tribunal may
dispose of the Original Application at the earliest, preferably by end
of June, 2018. Accordingly, we request the Tribunal may dispose of
the Original Application at the earliest/as per its schedule. However,
the petitioner shall not claim any equity.
Sd.- S. Panda, J.
Sd.-K.R. Mohapatra"
12. Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that the High Court protected
the respondent No. 1 till the disposal of the original application by the CAT.
By virtue of the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1 continued in service
beyond 30.04.2018.
13. CAT ultimately adjudicated the original application fi led by the
respondent No. 1 herein and vide its order dated 02.11.2020 rejected the
same holding that the respondent no. 1 is not entitled to seek parity with
AYUSH doctors in regard to the age of superannuation.
14. The sum and substance of the fi ndings recorded by the CAT may
be summarised as under:
(i) The Fundamental Rules notifi ed under Article 309 of the Constitution
of India are applicable to the employees working directly under the
Government of India. Its applicability to the employees of the Council
is on account of Clauses 34 and 35 respectively of the Bye-Laws. This
745
issue was considered by the Hyderabad Bench of the CAT vide order
dated 04.09.2020, wherein it was observed that-
"Clause 34 of the bye-law makes it crystal clear that the Governing
Body has to take a decision in regard to the enhancement of the
retirement age. The Governing body has no necessity to take a
decision in the context of the Ministry of AYUSH, Govt. of India
having made it clear that enhancement of retirement age is not
applicable to an autonomous body like CCRAS. Therefore, the
G.O.I. rule of not extending the enhancement of retirement age
to CCRAS compliments the clauses 35 & 47 of the byelaws. We
do not fi nd any error in the decision taken by the respondents in
terms of the bye laws."
(Emphasis supplied)
(ii) CAT did not accept the respondent No. 1's argument of Clause
35 and application of the Fundamental Rules mutatis mutandis to
the employees of the Council saying that the clause relates to the
general applicability of FRs, Supplementary Rule (SRs) and General
Financial Rules (GFRs) to the Council employees; the same is subject
to the provision specifi c to Clause 34 governing superannuation of the
employees of the Council. There is nothing in Clause 35 of the ByeLaws to have an overriding eff ect on Clause 34 regarding retirement
age.
(iii) Clause 47 of the Bye-Laws makes it clear that for the matters
not specifi cally provided in the Bye-Laws, the rules applicable to
the government employees would apply. But since there is a specifi c
provision regarding superannuation in Clause 34, the rules governing
government servants in respect of superannuation will not be applicable
to the employees of the Council unless it is in accordance with Clause
34 of the Bye-Laws.
(iv) There is nothing in the Cabinet resolution in question and in the
amended FR-56(bb) to show that these decisions are applicable to
the employees of the autonomous institutions. The assumption of the
respondent No. 1 that the FR-56, as amended from time to time, is
automatically applicable to the Council employees is not correct since
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC
SCIENCES v. BIKARTAN DAS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
it is subject to the provisions of Clauses 34 & 35 respectively of the
Bye-Laws.
(v) There is nothing wrong with the clarification letter dated
31.10.2017. It cannot be stated to be overriding the Cabinet decision
in question, and the objection to the letter on that ground is not
sustainable. The clarifi cation letter was circulated by the Council by
a subsequent letter dated 25.01.2018 among its offi cers, after issuance
of the fi rst amendment to FR-56. This implies that the Council, which
is the employer of the respondent No.1, had consciously accepted the
clarifi cation of the Ministry. The respondent No. 1 had not challenged
the Council's letter dated 25.01.2018 but had only challenged the
AYUSH Ministry's letter dated. 31.10.2017.
(vi) There is nothing in the pleadings of the respondent No.1 to show
that the amended FR-56(bb) is applicable to the employees of the
Council, except for citing the provisions of the Bye-Laws. As per
Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws, the rules governing the retirement of the
government employees will be applicable to the employees of the
Council as adopted by the Governing Body. This means that the unless
the Governing Body adopts the changes in rules for the retirement of
government servants, such changes are not automatically applicable
to the employees of the Council.
(vii) The CAT placed reliance on the decision of this Court in DDA
v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats, reported in (2008)
2 SCC 672 to hold that there are certain specifi c grounds on which
a policy decision can be subjected to judicial review, and in this
situation there was no valid ground to challenge the policy decision of
the AYUSH Ministry as per the clarifi cation letter dated 31.10.2017.
(viii) In the last, the CAT considered that even if the respondent
No.1's contention that he had treated patients was to be accepted, such
acceptance could not have negated the decision taken by the Ministry of
AYUSH in its clarifi cation letter dated 31.01.2017, which was further
accepted by the Council in its subsequent letter dated 25.01.2018.
15. The respondent No. 1 feeling dissatisfi ed with the aforesaid order
passed by the CAT challenged the same before the High Court in W.P.(C)
747
No. 30620 of 2020. The High Court allowed the writ application fi led by
the respondent No. 1 holding as under:
"On the analysis of the above factual matrix, we fi nd that though the
petitioner is functioning as Researcher under the Research Council/
National Institute, but as a requirement for upgrading the research
skill, he treats patients in the OPD and IPD. In fact, he performs similar
nature of duties like AYUSH doctor. Though his service condition is
covered by diff erent laws, but for all practical purposes, the petitioner
is performing like a doctor. Though there is a clear-cut distinguishing
features between the AYUSH doctor and that of the petitioner. The
petitioner herein is also treating the patients like AYUSH doctors in
the OPDs and IPDs on regular basis.
The Clause-34 and 35 of the bye-laws extends the force of the argument
of the petitioner to be treated as AYUSH doctor, even though he has
been appointed as Researcher.
Clauses-34 & 35 of the said bye-laws deal with superannuation which
read as under:
"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. Provided that an employee can be retained in service
after prescribed age of superannuation if he continues to be
physically fi t and effi cient and it is in the interest of the Central
Council to retain him in service.
35. The Fundamental and Supplementary Rules and General
Financial Rules of Government of India as amended from time
to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to employees of the Central
Council."
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the view taken
by the learned Tribunal vide its decision dated 02.11.2020 is
erroneous.
The learned CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has failed to consider the
petitioner's duty and devotion in treating the OPD and IPD patients.
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC
SCIENCES v. BIKARTAN DAS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Hence, the order dated 02.11.2020 passed by the learned CAT, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed."

(Emphasis supplied)
16. Thus, the plain reading of the impugned order passed by the
High Court referred to above would indicate that what weighed with the
High Court was that the respondent No. 1 herein used to treat patients like
AYUSH doctors in the Out-Patient Departments (OPDs) and In-Patient
Departments (IPDs) on regular basis and the duty and devotion exhibited
by the respondent No. 1 in treating the OPD and IPD patients would
entitle him to claim the benefi t of the enhanced age of superannuation
i.e., up to 65 years. The High Court recorded the said fi nding despite
acknowledging that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a researcher
under the Research Council and his service conditions were governed by
diff erent laws. Of course, the High Court also took support of Clauses
34 and 35 respectively of the Bye-Laws while granting relief to the
respondent No. 1.
17. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellants are here
before this Court with the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
18. Mr. Aman Lekhi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants made the following submissions:
a. The issue involved in the present case is the entitlement to
seek extension in superannuation age as per FR 56(bb) and its
applicability to the appellant Council which is an autonomous
body. The said FR has been amended from time to time and the
rule applicable in the present case i.e. at the time of the retirement
of the respondent No. 1 is of 05.01.2018.
b. The respondent No. 1 was an employee of CCRAS having joined
as Research Assistant and his terms of service were governed under
the Rules of CCRAS. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of
Research Offi cer and at the time of superannuation he was holding
the post of an Assistant Director.
749
c. The relevant clauses of CCRAS which are applicable to the facts
of the present case are Clauses 25(b), 34, 35 and 47 of CCRAS ByeLaws which are extracted herein for the sake of convenience:
"Appointments
25.(a)...
(b) Recruitments, appointments and promotions to all posts shall be
made according to the recruitment rules laid down by the Governing
Body or designated competent authority for the posts. Selection shall
be made through the Selection Committees/Departmental Promotion
Committees duly constituted with the approval of the respective
appointing authority.
Superannuation
34. The rules governing the retirement of employees of 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. Provided
that an employee can be retained in service after the prescribed age
of superannuation if he continues to be physically fi t and effi cient
and it is in the interest of the Central Council to retain him in service.
35. The Fundamental and Supplementary Rules and General Financial
Rules of Government of India as amended from time to time shall apply
mutatis mutandis to employees of the Central Council.

Xxx

xxx

xxx
Other Conditions of Service
47. In respect of matters not provided for in these regulations the rules
as applicable to Central Government servants regarding the general
conditions of service, pay, allowances T.A. and daily allowances,
foreign service terms, deputation in India and abroad, etc. and orders
and decisions issued in this regard by the Central Government from
time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the
Central Council."
(Emphasis supplied)
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC
SCIENCES v. BIKARTAN DAS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
d. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rules indicates that the employees
are recruited through a selection committee of the Council and the FRs
will not directly apply where the Governing Body fi nalises the rules
of superannuation.
e. In terms of Clause 34, the Governing Body had decided to fi x the
age of superannuation to be 60 years on 01.12.1998. The said decision
was ratifi ed on 27.01.2000 in the 14th Meeting of the Governing Body
of CCRAS as Agenda Item No. GB 14.4.
f. The decision of the Governing Body as aforementioned applied on
30.04.2018 i.e. the date of superannuation of the Respondent.
g. No reference has been made by the respondent No. 1 to the
aforementioned decision of the governing body in his representation.
In fact, the Respondent relied on Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws which on
its terms indicates that the rules governing the retirement of employees
of Government of India will not apply in the instant case.
h. Reliance placed by the respondent No. 1 in its representation on the
case of Salma Khatoon is equally inapt as the relevant rule in the said
case was diff erent from the Clause 34 of Bye-Laws herein. The said
case pertained to the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine
('CCRUM') which is governed by its own rules and regulation and
the applicable rule in that case was worded diff erently. Moreover, the
said case is still pending before the High Court of Delhi. The interim
order in favour of Salma Khatoon was vacated by this Court in the
case of Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine v. Dr. Salma
Khatoon and Others reported as 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1332.
i. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench ('CAT')
rightly held that the assumption of the respondent No. 1 that FR 56 is
automatically applicable is not correct as it is subject to Clause 34 of
the Bye-Laws of CCRAS.
j. The very same grounds as aforesaid were urged by the Appellants
in the Counter Affi davit fi led by them before the High Court of
Orissa.
751
k. While passing the impugned order, the High Court acknowledges
that the respondent No. 1 was working as a Researcher and his service
conditions were covered by a diff erent clause. Strangely, however,
the High Court makes no reference to Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws.
This is despite the fact that the appellants had clearly pleaded that
the respondent was not entitled to relief in terms of Clause 34 and
that FR 56 was not applicable to him.