Interim stay of retirement order is exceptional where continued service would defeat superannuation rules and prejudice promotions.

Interim stay of a municipal employee's retirement order at superannuation should be granted only in a very exceptional case, even where a writ petition challenges retirement at 58 years instead of 60 years. Applying the usual tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the Delhi HC noted that continuing service by interim order would defeat the retirement , obstruct promotions and recruitment, and cause harm to the employer and others that could not be adequately compensated. The employee's possible prejudice was treated as remediable by monetary relief if the challenge later succeeded, so interim stay was not warranted and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim stay of the retirement order should be granted pending disposal of the writ petition challenging retirement at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the service regulations governing municipal employees and the normal retirement age fixed under the applicable rules. It was held that the grant of interim stay in a matter of superannuation is not routine and should be ordered only in a very exceptional case. The relevant considerations were the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, but it was emphasised that continued service by interim order would defeat the retirement rule, obstruct promotions and recruitment, and create an injury to the employer and other that could not be adequately compensated. The petitioner's injury, if ultimately successful, could be compensated by monetary relief.

Conclusion: Interim stay of the retirement order was not warranted and the application was dismissed.

---