Service Law and Retirement Age of Employees in Autonomous Bodies under Fundamental Rules and Governing Bye-Laws (CaseLaws)

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. Vs Bikartan Das & Ors. (2023 INSC 733)

Summary of the CaseLaw
The Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute concerning the entitlement of a Research Assistant employed by an autonomous body, the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), to an enhanced retirement age of 65 years, which was granted to AYUSH doctors working directly under the Ministry of AYUSH. The key legal issues involved were:

Applicability of Government Service Rules to Autonomous Bodies – Whether the enhancement of the retirement age to 65 years for AYUSH doctors under the amended Fundamental Rule 56(bb) automatically applied to the employees of the autonomous Council.

Interpretation of Governing Bye-Laws – The correct interpretation of Clauses 34 and 35 of the CCRAS Bye-Laws, which govern the superannuation of its employees and the application of Central Government rules.

Judicial Review of Service Conditions – Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could substitute the service conditions fixed by the employer and grant relief based on the nature of duties performed rather than the governing rules.

The Court held that:
The enhanced retirement age of 65 years was not automatically applicable to the respondent. The CCRAS, as an autonomous body, was governed by its own Bye-Laws. Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws provided that the retirement age would be as per Government of India rules or as decided by the Council's Governing Body. The Governing Body had consciously fixed the retirement age at 60 years, and this decision was not overridden by the subsequent amendment to FR 56(bb). The High Court erred in granting relief by focusing on the respondent's clinical duties instead of the governing service rules. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.

Key Legal Principles Established:
Autonomy of Bodies in Service Conditions – Employees of autonomous bodies are governed by their own specific service rules and bye-laws. They cannot claim parity with Central Government employees as a matter of right, even if the body is fully funded or controlled by the government, unless the rules explicitly provide for such automatic application.

Interpretation of Disjunctive "Or" in Bye-Laws – The word "or" in a statutory rule or bye-law is normally disjunctive. In Clause 34, it created two distinct sources for determining the retirement age: the Government of India rules or the decision of the Governing Body, and not a single composite source.

Limits of Writ Jurisdiction – A writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction, not an appellate one. The High Court cannot reweigh evidence or substitute its own decision for that of the competent authority or tribunal on factual or interpretative matters, especially in policy-driven areas like fixing the age of superannuation.

Relevance:
This judgment is a significant precedent for service matters related to autonomous bodies under the Government of India. It clarifies that the service conditions of such employees are primarily dictated by their own governing rules and that a conscious decision by the governing body of an autonomous institution regarding service conditions, such as the age of superannuation, will prevail unless it is arbitrary or violates a statutory mandate. It also reiterates the restrained approach courts must adopt while interpreting service regulations and exercising writ jurisdiction.