2023 (8) TMI 1425 - SC - Indian Laws

Benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 65 years as applicable to the AYUSH doctors working under the Ministry of AYUSH - cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 - Writ of certiorari - HELD THAT - A writ of certiorari being a high prerogative writ is issued by a superior court in respect of the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions by another authority when the contention is that the exercising authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that the tribunals or the authorities concerned in this batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However the argument would be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and illegally and that they had failed to give proper findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent made an application in the Revenue Court of the Mamlatdar of Sirsi praying for the delivery of possession of property which the appellant was on that date possessing as the tenant under him on the basis of a Mulegeni deed executed by the respondent s predecessor-in-interest in favour of the appellant s predecessor-ininterest. The case was governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 and one of the questions in controversy was whether before applying for the delivery of possession it was incumbent upon the respondent to have given a notice terminating the tenancy. The Mamlatdar made an order for possession in favour of the respondent. The Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Mamlatdar. The purpose of certiorari as we understand is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction so as to avoid the irregular exercise or the non-exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute. The accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in the case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. The impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to enhanced retirement age from 60 to 65 years.
2. Applicability of Fundamental Rules (FR) 56(bb) to employees of autonomous bodies.
3. Interpretation and applicability of Clauses 34 and 35 of the Bye-Laws of CCRAS.
4. Judicial review of policy decisions and administrative orders.

Summary:

Entitlement to Enhanced Retirement Age:
The High Court of Orissa allowed the writ application, holding that the respondent was entitled to the enhanced retirement age of 65 years, similar to AYUSH doctors, due to his role in treating patients in OPDs and IPDs. The High Court considered the respondent's duties and devotion in treating patients, despite acknowledging that his service conditions were governed by different laws.

Applicability of FR 56(bb):
The CAT held that the assumption that FR 56(bb) automatically applies to Council employees was incorrect. The applicability of FRs to Council employees is subject to Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws, which governs superannuation. The CAT found no evidence that the amended FR-56(bb) applied to Council employees unless adopted by the Governing Body.

Interpretation and Applicability of Clauses 34 and 35:
The CAT and Supreme Court emphasized that Clause 34 specifically governs superannuation and that Clause 35, which applies FRs and SRs mutatis mutandis, does not override Clause 34. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that Clause 34 should be read in two parts, stating that the governing body is not obliged to follow the Ministry of AYUSH's decision on superannuation.

Judicial Review of Policy Decisions:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for granting interim relief extending the respondent's service beyond 60 years and for misinterpreting the duties performed by the respondent as a basis for altering the age of superannuation. The Court reiterated that policy decisions on superannuation are within the domain of the governing body and not the judiciary, unless found to be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, upholding the CAT's decision that the respondent was not entitled to the enhanced retirement age. The Court emphasized the autonomy of the governing body in determining superannuation rules and the limited scope of judicial review in policy matters.