Retiral benefits for service beyond prescribed superannuation age remain subject to pending parity adjudication.

The respondent, a doctor in the Department of Ayush, claimed parity with doctors employed in the Public Health and Medical Education Department, where the age of superannuation was 65 years, whereas Ayush doctors were ordinarily superannuated at 62 years.

In Writ Petition No. 17084/2025, the Single Judge passed an order dated 1 September 2025 directing that the respondent’s retiral dues be processed by treating his superannuation age as 62 years, while leaving his entitlement to benefits for service between 62 and 65 years subject to the outcome of pending Writ Petition No. 27258/2011.

The respondent had continued to work until 65 years pursuant to an interim order.

The State filed the present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005, with a delay of 234 days.

The State attributed the delay to obtaining legal opinions, processing the matter through the Law Department, and procedural formalities.

The respondent opposed condonation and dismissal of the appeal.

Whether the delay of 234 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

Whether the Single Judge erred in directing payment of retiral dues up to the age of 62 years while making further benefits for the period from 62 to 65 years subject to the outcome of the pending writ petition?

Whether the State’s writ appeal was maintainable on merits in view of the pending litigation concerning the applicable age of superannuation of Ayush doctors?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, under which delay may be condoned where “sufficient cause” is shown.

It referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Motilal Songara v. Prem Prakash alias Pappu and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 199; Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 531; and Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501, in the context of considering condonation of delay.

On the service issue, the Court applied the principle that, while the question of parity in the age of superannuation remained pending, the employee’s financial interests could be protected by directing payment of settled retiral dues up to the undisputed age of 62 years and by making entitlement for the disputed period subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings.

The Court also relied upon the approach adopted in Dr. Shyam Babu Soni v. State of M.P. and Others, W.P. No. 26611/2025, and Review Petition No. 522/2026, including the clarification concerning the authorities relied upon by the State.

The Court found that the State had shown sufficient cause for the delay, considering the stated process of obtaining legal opinions and completing departmental formalities; accordingly, the delay of 234 days was condoned.

On merits, however, the Court held that the Single Judge had adopted a balanced and legally sustainable course.

Since the respondent’s claim to superannuation at 65 years was still pending adjudication, the Single Judge correctly treated 62 years as the presently applicable age for calculating retiral dues, while preserving the respondent’s claim for the period from 62 to 65 years until the pending writ petition was decided.

The State could not demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or error in that arrangement.

The Court further observed that the State was already aware of the relevant litigation and the similar decision in Dr. Shyam Babu Soni, making the appeal misconceived.

The appeal was also considered unjustified in view of the 234-day delay and the absence of any substantive ground for interference.

On admission, it found no perversity, illegality, or error in the Single Judge’s order.

The State was directed to comply with the order granting the respondent retiral dues up to the age of 62 years, with entitlement to benefits for the period from 62 to 65 years governed by the outcome of the pending writ petition.

The writ appeal was consequently dismissed, and costs of ₹10,000 were imposed on the State, payable within thirty days to the Juvenile Justice Fund; the State was permitted to recover the amount from the authority responsible for filing the appeal.