2023 Supreme(SC) 763

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
Central Council For Research In Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Bikartan Das & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023
Decided on : 16-08-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Question of age of retirement stands on a different footing from service conditions relating to pay and allowances and revision of pay – Age of superannuation is always governed by statutory rules governing appointment on a particular post.
(2) Writ of certiorari will not lie where order or decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong in matter of facts or on merits.

Headnote:

(A) Interpretation of Statute – Principle of Statutory Interpretation – Word “or” is normally disjunctive and word “and” is normally conjunctive – Both of them can be read as vice-versa, but that interpretation is adopted only where intention of Legislature is manifest. (Para 32)

(B) Service Law – Retirement – Age – What should be age of superannuation is a matter of policy – It is not within domain of court to legislate – It is only if a policy decision or a notification is arbitrary it may invite frowns of Article 14 of Constitution – Question of age of retirement stands on a different footing from service conditions relating to pay and allowances and revision of pay – Age of superannuation is always governed by statutory rules governing appointment on a particular post – Even if it is averred that nature of work involved in two posts is similar, same cannot be a ground to increase or alter service conditions of an employee as each post is governed by its own set of rules – Court or Tribunal should be slow and circumspect in granting interim relief for continuation in service unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced – Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Research Assistant and was functioning as a Researcher under Research Council and his service conditions were also different compared to AYUSH doctors serving with Ministry of AYUSH – High Court misdirected itself saying that benefit of enhanced age of superannuation can also be granted if duties performed are same like AYUSH doctors. (Paras 35, 44 and 48)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Certiorari – To attract writ of certiorari, a mere error of law is not sufficient – It must be one which is manifest or patent on face of record – Mere formal or technical errors, even of law, are not sufficient so as to attract writ of certiorari – Writ of Certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued on mere asking – For issue of a writ of certiorari, party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course – Certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory – Writ of certiorari will not lie where order or decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong in matter of facts or on merits. (Paras 59, 64 and 65)

(D) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Certiorari – Purpose of certiorari is only to confine inferior Tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid irregular exercise, or non-exercise or illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in exercise of powers vested in them under the statute – Accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise, it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. (Para 77)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2020 passed by High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 30620 of 2020 by which High Court allowed the writ application filed by the original petitioner (respondent No. 1), setting aside order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and thereby holding that the respondent No. 1, is entitled to the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years as applicable to the AYUSH doctors working under Ministry of AYUSH.

Findings of Court:

Impugned order passed by High Court dated 17.12.2020 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 30620 of 2020 is set aside.

Result : Appeal allowed.