Supreme Court sets aside interim orders granting salary payments after tribunal rejected medical officer's superannuation age enhancement claim

SC set aside HC interim orders dated 12 September 2018 and 23 January 2020 regarding enhancement of superannuation age for medical officers to sixty-five years. HC had directed salary payment to respondent during interim stage despite tribunal's rejection of her claim. SC held HC was unjustified in granting final relief at interim stage when tribunal's correctness remained undetermined. Appeal allowed, interim orders set aside for virtually amounting to final relief grant.

---

---

Issues:
- Applicability of the decision to enhance the age of superannuation to sixty-five years to certain individuals.
- Validity of interim orders passed by the High Court.
- Justifiability of directing an employee to work without salary.
- Proper course of action regarding reinstatement at the interim stage.
- Merits of the High Court's directions and implications on final relief.
- Clarification on the entitlement to salary for work performed beyond the age of sixty years.
- Setting aside of impugned interim orders and keeping rights and contentions open for the High Court to decide.

Analysis:
1. Applicability of Age Enhancement Decision:
The central issue revolved around the applicability of the Government's decision to increase the retirement age to sixty-five years to a Research Officer who performed medical duties. The respondent argued for the extension of retirement benefits, while the appellant contended that autonomous institutions were exempt. The High Court's interim orders directed payment for work done post-retirement age, pending the writ petition.

2. Validity of High Court's Interim Orders:
The Additional Solicitor General challenged the High Court's interim orders, arguing that reinstating the respondent without salary was improper. The court noted that directing an employee to work without pay was unfair. The High Court's actions were questioned, especially considering the dismissal of the respondent's OA by the Tribunal.

3. Proper Course of Action:
The High Court's decision to continue the respondent in service without salary raised concerns. The appellant sought a recall of the order, emphasizing that the High Court virtually allowed the writ petition at the interim stage. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's objection, emphasizing that final relief should not be granted at the interim stage.

4. Clarification on Entitlement to Salary:
The Supreme Court vacated the High Court's interim orders and clarified that the respondent would be entitled to salary for work performed beyond the age of sixty years if verified during the final hearing. The Court urged the High Court to expedite the writ petition's disposal while keeping the parties' rights and contentions open for further arguments.

5. Final Disposition:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned interim orders. The Court emphasized the need for the High Court to thoroughly examine the work done by the respondent post-retirement age to determine the entitlement to salary. The parties were directed to present their arguments before the High Court, which was urged to expedite the case's resolution.

---