NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs. RAM NARESH SHARMA

REPORTABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No). 10156/2019) North Delhi Municipal Corporation  Appellant(s)      VERSUS Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Ors.  Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal No. 4579/2021 (@SLP(C) No. 10159/2019) Civil Appeal No.4580/2021 (@SLP(C) No. 10160/2019)  Civil Appeal No.4581/2021 (@ SLP(C) No. 10928/2019)  Civil Appeal No.4582/2021 (@SLP(C) No. 10925/2019)  Civil Appeal No.4583/2021 (@SLP(C) No. 12046/2019)  Civil Appeal No.4584/2021 (@SLP(C) No. 19288/2019)  Civil Appeal No.4585/2021 (@SLP(C) No. 19287/2019)  Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Date: 2021.08.03 17:11:04 IST Reason: Civil Appeal No.4586/2021 (@SLP(C) No. 24693/2019) 1 J U D G M E N T HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. Leave granted. These appeals are directed against the judgment and   order   dated   15.11.2018   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Delhi whereby the Court upheld the common final order dated 24.08.2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short] and dismissed the petitions filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation [hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDMC’ for short]. The Tribunal declared that the applicants who are ayurvedic doctors covered under AYUSH are also entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age of 65 years (raised from 60 years),   just   like   the   allopathic   doctors.   The   entitlement   of   the respondents to continue in service upto 65 years and receive due remuneration for the same is the only issue to be considered in these cases. For the sake of convenience, the relevant facts are taken from SLP (C) No. 10156 of 2019.  2. Prior to 31.05.2016, the retirement age was 60 years for the General Duty Medical Officers [‘GDMO’ for short] of the Central Health Scheme [‘CHS’ for short], the Dentists and Doctors covered under 2 AYUSH (including ayurvedic doctors).  At that stage, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued the order dated 31.05.2016, with immediate effect, enhancing upto 65 years, the age of superannuation of the specialists of Non­teaching and public health sub­cadres   of   CHS   and   GDMOs   of   CHS.   This   was   followed   by consequential amendment of the Fundamental Rules, 1922 by Gazette Notification   dated   31.05.2016   of   the   Department   of   Personnel Training. On 30.06.2016 the NDMC adopted the Government of India order   by   issuing   office   order   dated   30.06.2016   and   enhanced   the retirement age to 65 years for the Allopathic doctors working in the NDMC. The Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Health and Family   Welfare   on   30.08.2016   then   clarified   that   the   enhanced superannuation age granted by order dated 31.05.2016 is applicable to   GDMOs   of   CHS   i.e.   the   allopathic   doctors   and   municipal corporations   and   others   were   given   the   liberty   to   take   their   own decision on the matter, on the applicability of the Ministry’s decision on enhancement of superannuation age. Thus, the ayurvedic doctors were not seen to have been covered by the Ministry’s order dated 31.05.2016. 3 3. The above led to several Original Applications (OA) filed by the ayurvedic   doctors,   before   the   Tribunal.   The   respondent   Dr.   Ram Naresh Sharma and other ayurvedic doctors sought the benefit of the Government decision and the office order of NDMC, for it to be made applicable to the ayurvedic doctors as well.  On 09.12.2016 an interim order was passed by the Tribunal to the following effect.: “In   the   meantime,   it   is   directed   that   the Applicant may be allowed to continue in service on the post held by him beyond the date of his retirement/superannuation   till   further   orders, however,   he   will   not   be   paid   any   salary   nor shall   this   order   confer   any   right   or   equity   in favour of the Applicant.” By   the   common   final   order   dated   24.08.2017,   the   Tribunal 4. accepted   the   discrimination   argument   advanced   by   the   ayurvedic doctors vis­à­vis the allopathic doctors. Accordingly, it was held that the applicants were entitled to same service conditions including the enhanced age of superannuation to 65 years, as made applicable to doctors (GDMOs) working under the CHS, in terms of the order dated 31.05.2016   of   Ministry   of   Health   and   Family   Welfare.   Thus,   the employer was directed to allow the ayurvedic doctors to continue in service till the age of 65 years. It was clarified that in case any of the applicants had been made to superannuate at the age of 60 years, 4 he/she shall be reinstated and be permitted to serve until the age of 65 years.  5. Aggrieved by the above decision of the Tribunal, the appellant NDMC preferred Writ Petitions before the High Court of Delhi. During the   pendency   of   writ   petition,   on   24.11.2017,   the   Ministry   of Ayurveda,   Yoga,   Naturopathy,   Unani,   Siddha   and   Homeopathy (‘AYUSH’ for short), Government of India, issued an order whereby it was communicated that the superannuation age of AYUSH doctors is also enhanced to 65 years w.e.f. 27.09.2017, i.e. the date of approval of Union Cabinet. It was however directed that the doctors shall hold administrative positions only until age of 62 years and thereafter, their service shall be placed in non­administrative positions. 6. It may be noted that the High Court on 26.09.2017 in WP(C) 8704/2017 arising out of OA 2712/ 2016 (NDMC vs. Dr. Santosh Kumar Sharma), had passed the following interim order:  “ Since the private respondents are still working under the orders as passed by the Tribunal, the respondents may continue to work, if they so desire without receiving any salary as of now. We   are   inclined   to   permit   the   respondents   to continue   to   serve   this   interim   order,   since learned counsel for the private respondents have stated,   on   instructions,   that   in   case   the 5 petitioner   succeeds,   they   shall   not   claim   any equity   on   account   of   the   fact   that   they   have rendered services under the order of the Court. The   respondents   shall   remain   bound   by   their said statements.” 7. When the Writ Petition 637/2018 arising out of O.A. 4026/2016 of the respondent Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma came up for consideration, the High Court on 23.01.2018 while issuing notice passed an interim order to the following effect.  “In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed on the same terms as recorded in the interim order dated 26.09.2017, passed in W.P.8704/2017” The   Writ   Petitions   challenging   the   Tribunal’s   common   order 8. dated   24.08.2017   were   heard   analogously   and   were   dismissed affirming the Tribunal’s conclusion in favor of the ayurvedic doctors. The Tribunal noted in its order that although initially the benefit of policy   decision   of   government   to   enhance   the   retirement   age   was confined to allopathic doctors but subsequently the policy decision was made applicable to other category doctors (including ayurvedic doctors),   covered   by   AYUSH.   Significantly,   while   the   NDMC   has adopted the Ministry’s decision but those ayurvedic doctors of the 6 NDMC who fall in the window between 31.05.2016 and 26.09.2017, are deprived of getting the benefit of the enhanced retirement age. In other words, only those retiring on or after 27.09.2017, could aspire to serve until 65 years.  9. The High Court in the analogous judgment referred to the case of Dr. Pratibha Sharma who was employed as an ayurvedic doctor under the East Delhi Municipal Corporation [‘EDMC’] and observed that her employer, unlike the NDMC, has not adopted the Government decision dated 24.11.2017 to enhance the retirement age to 65 years for   the   AYUSH   category   doctors.   Taking   note   that   Dr.   Pratibha Sharma’s employers had not adopted the AYUSH Ministry’s decision dated 24.11.2017, it was left open to the EDMC to deal with her case as deemed appropriate. With such finding and observation, the WPs came to be dismissed upholding the view taken by the Tribunal in favor of the ayurvedic doctors and consequential direction was issued to the NDMC to disburse payment of arrears of salary and allowances to   the   ayurvedic   doctors,   who   continue   to   serve   with   the   NDMC beyond the age of 60 years.  Specific direction was also issued on their entitlement to salary and other allowances till they superannuate at 7 the age of 65 years. Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court of Delhi, the present Appeals are filed.  10. The   Respondents   in   SLP   (C)   No.   19288/2019   (Dr.   Brijesh Kumari) and SLP (C) No. 19287/2019 (Dr. Mohd. Ahmed Khan) are Ayurvedic and Unani doctors respectively, working under the South Delhi   Municipal   Corporation   [‘SDMC’].   Dr.   Brijesh   Kumar   was supposed to retire on 31.07.2017 upon attaining age of 60 years, whereas Dr. Mohd. Ahmed Khan was supposed to superannuate on 31.05.2017. Dr. Brijesh Kumar filed O.A. 2503/2017 in the Tribunal, which came to be decided on 05.09.2017. In its order the Tribunal, relied on its earlier judgment in the matter of Dr. Santosh Sharma, whereby the respondents were allowed to continue in service till they attain the age of 65 years.  Similarly, Dr. Khan’s application came to be decided on 21.09.2017 with like consequences.  Aggrieved by these orders, Writ Petitions were preferred by the SDMC impugning the judgments by the Tribunal. These Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Delhi High Court on same day i.e. 27.03.2019 vide judgments in W.P. (C) No. 1776/2018 and W.P.(C) No. 1769/2019. In this Court, the SDMC   has   averred   that   the   order   of   AYUSH   Ministry   dated 24.11.2017 has been adopted by the SDMC on 31.10.2018, but the 8 approval   for   the   same  from  the  House  of  SDMC,  is  still  pending. Hence, it cannot be said that the SDMC has adopted the order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017.  11. The respondent in SLP (C) 24693/2019, Dr. Lata A. Dupare, was working   as   a   dental   surgeon   under   CGHS,   Nagpur.   Dr.   Lata   was supposed to retire on 31.05.2016. The Tribunal by an order dated 17.11.2017 in O.A. 3795/2017 citing its own judgment in Dr. Santosh 1 Sharma, and Dr. H. P. Singh vs. Union of India  gave her the benefit of extended   superannuation   age.   Aggrieved   by   this   order,   the   Union preferred a W.P.(C) 3210/2019 in the High Court of Delhi which came to be dismissed on 01.04.2019.   12. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and   the   respondents.   Questioning   the   legality   of   the   impugned decision, Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, learned senior counsel contends that   the   benefit   of   enhanced   retirement   age   should   have   been extended only w.e.f. 27.09.2017 as per the AYUSH Ministry’s decision, as there is limited scope for interference on a cut­off date, stipulated by   the   government.   The   interim   order   dated   26.09.2017   in   W.P. 8704/2017 of the High Court is read by the counsel to argue that 1 O.A. 3321/2016. 9 while the respondents were permitted to continue in service beyond 60 years, they are disentitled to claim  any  equitable relief by way of arrear of salary on account of the fact that they remained in service under interim orders of the court. The financial implication for the employer is highlighted by the learned senior counsel to argue that the appellants should not be burdened with the liability to disburse the unpaid arrear salary to the respondents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents argue 13. that relief to the respondents was granted by the Tribunal and by the High   Court   by   concluding   that   the   action   of   the   authorities   in treatment of the allopathic doctors vis­à­vis the ayurvedic doctors was discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of Constitution. Accordingly, it is argued that there can be no separate service condition in so far as the superannuation age is concerned between allopathic and other category   doctors,   particularly   when   the   AYUSH   Ministry   itself   on 24.11.2017 has enhanced the retirement age for the non­allopathic doctors w.e.f. 27.09.2017, in tune with  the Ministry’s order  dated 31.05.2016. 10 14.  Ld. Sr. Counsel for appellant relied on judgment of this Court in U.   P.   State   Brasswar   Corporation   Ltd.   and   Anr.   vs.   Uday   Narain 2 Pandey ,  and argued that while earlier, awarding full arrears of salary was the practice, under the prevalent pragmatic view of the issue, the Court should determine the award of back wages based on facts and circumstances of each case. For the Bench, Justice S. B. Sinha in Uday Narain Pandey (supra)  stated that: 

15. The above ratio in   Uday Narain Pandey (supra)   is however not attracted to the matters before us, as there is significant difference in 2 (2006) 1 SCC 479 11 the factual matrix. In the cited case ,  the respondent­worker had not re­joined or continued his employment after his retirement, and was asking for wages for work, he did not actually render. Whereas, in this bunch of cases, it is undisputed that the respondent doctors have continuously served in hospitals till attaining the enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 65 years vide the AYUSH Ministry order dated 24.11.2017 and by virtue of interim order of the High Court dated 26.09.2017.   In other words, they have been productive not only for the patients but also for their employers. The   learned   senior   counsel   for   appellant   by   placing   reliance 16. upon the HC interim order submits that respondent doctors are not entitled to remuneration and unpaid arrears as they were serving in the   hospitals   on   the   strength   of   the   Court’s   interim   order.   Such argument for appellants cannot however be accepted in light of the principle   ‘Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit’.   Explaining the principle, Justice   B.   S.   Chauhan   speaking   for   this   court   in   Kalabharati 3 Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania ,  stated the following:  3 (2010) 9 SCC 437 12

17. Bearing in mind the above legal principle the Interim order of Delhi High Court dated 26.09.2017 in our opinion cannot be the basis to deny salary and arrear benefits to respondents. The said interim order   merged   with   the   final   judgment   dated   15.11.2018   and   all consequential benefits of employment were due to the respondents. Therefore,   when   the   respondents   worked   and   served   patients,   the basic benefit of salary cannot be denied to the doctors.  18. This Court in case of  Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha 4 vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors. ,  stated that: 

4 (2014) 1 SCC 161 13

The above ratio correctly sets out the employers’ responsibility to pay the wages for the productive employees serving under them.  19. In the case of   New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & 5 this   Court   while   dealing   with   a Anr.   vs.   B.   D.   Singhal   &   Ors. ,   comparable issue, declined to give retrospective application to the U.P. th State Government order dated 30  September 2012, which extended the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. The arrears of st salary to respondent employees who had retired on 31  August, 2012, upon attaining the age of 58 years was also denied.  But that case can have   no   application   in   the   present   appeals   since   facts   are distinguishable. There are two vital factual differences, which need to be   considered.   Firstly,   the   Allahabad   High   Court   retrospectively th applied the U.P. State Government order dated 30  September 2012, th from   29   June   2002   i.e.   the   day   on   which   recommendation   for extending the age of superannuation was made. Whereas, in the case 5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466, C.A. No. 2311 of 2021 14 at   hand,   on   31.05.2016   a   notification   was   issued   which   was expeditiously   implemented.   Secondly,   arrears   of   salary   were disallowed,   because   the   respondent­employees   in   New   Okhla Industrial Development Authority   had not worked even a single day after retiring, on attaining 58 years of age. But, in the present case, respondent­doctors have been working continuously without break, pursuant   to   the   Interim   order   of   the   Delhi   High   Court   dated 26.09.2017. Hence, based on these two distinguishing aspects, the ratio in   New Okhla Industrial Development Authority   cannot in our opinion be applicable here, to defeat the legitimate expectation of the respondents.            20. In these matters, for almost 5 years, the respondent doctors have   been   providing   service   to   countless   patients,   without remuneration or benefits. Their services are utilized by the employer in Government establishments, without demur. In this regard, the learned   senior   counsel   for   appellant   submits   that   paying   arrear unpaid   wages   to   the   respondent   doctors   will   impose   substantial financial burden upon the State.  Such submission cannot however be countenanced   as   a   fair   submission   by   the   State’s   counsel.   The principle of   ‘No Work, No Pay’   protects employers from paying their 15 employees if they don’t receive service from them. A corollary thereto of  ‘No work should go unpaid’  should be the appropriate doctrine to be followed in these cases where the service rendered by the respondent doctors   have   been   productive   both   for   the   patients   and   also   the employer.   Therefore,   we   are   quite   clear   in   our   mind   that   the respondents   must   be   paid   their   lawful   remuneration­   arrears   and current,   as   the   case   may   be.   The   State   cannot   be   allowed   plead financial   burden   to   deny   salary   for   the   legally   serving   doctors. Otherwise it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution.  21.  In the case of the   respondent in SLP (C) 12046/2019 i.e. Dr. H. P. Singh, it is averred by the appellants, that he has not worked after superannuation   on   attaining   the   age   of   60   years.   But,   there   is sufficient evidence on record to suggest that the respondent­doctor through several representations sought to be re­appointed but it was the   employer   who   created   impediments   and   did   not   allow   the respondent to re­join his duties in hospitals. In such circumstances, the principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ cannot be raised by the employers, as it is they who had obstructed the doctor from  discharging  his service.  For support we may cite  Dayanand Chakrawarthy vs. State of 16 6 Uttar   Pradesh   where   this   Court   speaking   through   Justice   S.   J. Mukhpadhyaya rightly held that: “ 48.   …   If   an   employee   is   prevented   by   the employer from performing his duties, the employee cannot be blamed for having not worked, and the principle   of   “no   pay   no   work”   shall   not   be applicable to such employee.” 22. The   common   contention   of   the   appellants   before   us   is   that classification of AYUSH doctors and doctors under CHS in different categories is reasonable and permissible in law. This however does not appeal to us and we are inclined to agree with the findings of the Tribunal   and   the   Delhi   High   Court   that   the   classification   is discriminatory and unreasonable since doctors under both segments are   performing   the   same   function   of   treating   and   healing   their patients.   The   only   difference   is   that   AYUSH   doctors   are   using indigenous systems of medicine like Ayurveda, Unani, etc. and CHS doctors   are   using   Allopathy   for   tending   to   their   patients.   In   our understanding, the mode of treatment by itself under the prevalent scheme   of   things,   does   not   qualify   as   an   intelligible   differentia. Therefore, such unreasonable classification and discrimination based on it would surely be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The order of AYUSH Ministry dated 24.11.2017 extending the age of 6 (2013) 7 SCC 595. 17 superannuation to 65 Years also endorses such a view. This extension is   in   tune   with   the   notification   of   Ministry   of   Health   and   Family Welfare dated 31.05.2016.  23. The  doctors, both  under AYUSH and CHS, render service to patients and on this core aspect, there is nothing to distinguish them. Therefore, no rational justification is seen for having different dates for bestowing the benefit of extended age of superannuation to these two categories of doctors. Hence, the order of AYUSH Ministry (F. No. D. 14019/4/2016­E­I   (AYUSH))   dated   24.11.2017   must   be retrospectively applied from 31.05.2016 to all concerned respondent­ doctors, in the present appeals.   All consequences must follow from this conclusion.   24. In light of the above discussion, the appellant’s actions in not paying the respondent doctors their due salary and benefits, while their counterparts in CHS system received salary and benefits in full, must  be  seen  as  discriminatory.   Hence,  we  have  no  hesitation  in holding that the respondent­doctors are entitled to their full salary arrears and the same is ordered to be disbursed, within 8 weeks from today.   Belated   payment   beyond   the   stipulated   period   will   carry interest, at the rate of 6% from the date of this order until the date of 18 payment. It is ordered accordingly. The appeals are disposed of in above terms without any order on cost.   ..……………………………….J.       [L. NAGESWARA RAO] …………………………………J.         [HRISHIKESH ROY] NEW DELHI AUGUST 03, 2021. 19