2020 (6) TMI 832

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rma, Adv. And Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR ORDER Civil Appeal Nos 2476-2478 of 2020 1 Delay condoned. 2 Leave granted. 3 Aggrieved by the decision of the appellant to retire her on attaining the age of sixty years, the first respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 335 of 2018. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision which has been taken by the Government of India on 31 May 2016 to enhance the age of superannuation of General Duty Medical Officers and specialists working in the Central Government and its allied institutions to sixty-five years, would be applicable to persons such as the first respondent. The contention of the first respondent was that though designated as Research Officer, sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....General submits that the first interim order of the High Court was passed on a mis-statement which was made by the first respondent that she was continuing in service on the date of the interim order. The Additional Solicitor General urged that on the date of the interim order, the first respondent had been relieved from her duties. Moreover, it has been submitted that though the first respondent failed before the Tribunal, she was reinstated by the High Court at the interim stage. Mr. Lekhi submitted, that the second interim order was passed on the application for recall of the first order moved by the appellant on the ground that a direction to continue the first respondent could not have been issued at the interim stage especially after ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd her OA stood dismissed. The effect of the interim order that was passed by the High Court on 12 September 2018 is that the first respondent was to be continued in service albeit without the payment of salary. From a reading of the order it would appear that the court inquired of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent as to whether she was ready and willing to work without salary. In view of her affirmative response, such a direction was passed by the court. We are not in agreement with the course of action adopted by the High Court. It was not proper for the High Court to direct that the first respondent be continued in service even if without the payment of salary. Directing an employee to work without the payment of ....