Superannuation age under autonomous body bye-laws cannot be raised by parity with government doctors.

Employees of an autonomous research council were governed by the council's bye-laws, and the specific retirement clause fixing superannuation at 60 years prevailed over general service rules applied only mutatis mutandis. The enhancement of retirement age for AYUSH doctors under the Ministry did not automatically extend to autonomous-body employees with a distinct service regime. Similarity in duties, including patient treatment, could not displace the governing bye-laws or create parity with government doctors. The High Court erred in granting relief on functional similarity rather than the applicable service framework, and the claim for enhancement of superannuation age was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an employee of an autonomous research council, appointed as a researcher and governed by its bye-laws, could claim enhancement of superannuation age to 65 years on the footing that he performed duties similar to AYUSH doctors and that Rule 56(bb) of the Fundamental Rules, 1922 applied to him.

Analysis: The service conditions of the council employees were governed by the council's bye-laws. Clause 34 specifically dealt with retirement and showed that the governing body had fixed the age of superannuation at 60 years, while Clause 35 applied the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules mutatis mutandis only subject to the specific retirement provision. Clause 47 applied government servant rules only where the bye-laws were silent. The Court held that the later enhancement of retirement age for AYUSH doctors under the Ministry did not automatically extend to autonomous-body employees whose service regime was distinct. The Court also held that similarity in duties, including treatment of patients, could not override the governing service rules or justify parity with government doctors. The High Court had therefore erred in substituting its own view for the service framework and in granting relief on the basis of functional similarity.

Conclusion: The claim for enhancement of superannuation age was rejected and the judgment of the High Court was set aside.

---