Issue for consideration: High Court, if erred in setting aside the orderpassed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and holding that respondentNo.1 was entitled to the benefi t of enhancement of retirement age from 60to 65 years as applicable to the AYUSH doctors working under the Ministryof AYUSH.Service Law – Grant of benefi t of enhancement of retirement age– Unsustainability:Held: Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Research Assistant by theappellant-Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS)and was functioning as a Researcher under the Research Council and hisservice conditions were also diff erent compared to the AYUSH doctorsserving with the Ministry of AYUSH – Appellant-Council is a registeredautonomous body and is administratively controlled by the Ministry ofAYUSH, Government of India – The recruitment rules, procedure and theservice conditions of its employees are governed by the Bye-Laws andMemorandum of Association of the Council – High Court misdirected itselfsaying that the benefi t of enhanced age of superannuation can also be grantedif the duties performed are the same like AYUSH doctors – Governing bodyof the Council is not obliged to take a decision in tune with the decisionof the Ministry of AYUSH regarding superannuation more particularlyhaving made it clear that enhancement of retirement age is not applicable to an autonomous body like CCRAS – Age of superannuation is alwaysgoverned by the statutory rules governing appointment on a particularpost – Hence, even if it is averred that the nature of work involved in thetwo posts is similar, the same cannot be a ground to increase or alter theservice conditions of an employee as each post is governed by its own setof rules – Impugned order not sustainable, set aside – Society RegistrationAct, 1860. [Paras 23, 34, 44 and 48]Service Law – Interim relief for continuation in service granted– Impropriety:Held: Court or the Tribunal should be slow and circumspect in grantinginterim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence ofunimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds,he can always be compensated – But if he fails, he would have enjoyedundeserved benefi t of extended service and caused injustice to his immediatejunior – In the present case, High Court went to the extent of granting interimrelief extending the period of service beyond 60 years till the disposal ofthe Original Petition by the CAT – By virtue of such interim order whichthe High Court ordinarily should not grant, the respondent No. 1 althoughwas to retire in 2018 yet continued in service till 2021 – It is only whenSupreme Court stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by theHigh Court while issuing notice that the service of the respondent No.1came to an end. [Para 48]Service Law – Memorandum of Association of the Central Councilfor Research in Ayurvedic Sciences – Bye-Laws – Clauses 25(b), 34, 35and 47 – Plea of respondent No.1 was that the provisions of FR 56(bb)would apply to him in his capacity as an employee of the Council in viewof Clause 35, Bye-Laws of the Council by which the provisions of the FRand SR would apply to the employees of the Council mutatis mutandis:Held: Clauses 25(b), 34, 35 and 47 of the Bye-Laws in the Memorandumof Association indicate that the employees are recruited through a selectioncommittee of the Council – It further indicates that the Fundamental Rules,1922 will have no direct application in cases where the governing bodyfi nalises the rules of superannuation – In terms of Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws,the governing body had decided the age of superannuation to be 60 yearson 01.12.1998 – The said decision was ratifi ed on 27.01.2000 - CAT rightly took the view that the plea canvassed on behalf of the respondent No.1 thatthe Council failed to consider the Clause 35 of the Bye-Laws which statesthat the FR, Supplementary Rule (SR) and General Financial Rules (GFR)as amended from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to employeesof the Council, was without any merit and deserved to be rejected – CATrightly rejected such argument because the applicability would be subjectto the provision specifi c to the Clause 34 governing superannuation of theemployees of the Council – There is nothing in Clause 35 of the Bye-Lawson the basis of which, it could be said that the same will have an overridingeff ect on Clause 34 as regards the age of retirement – Clause 47 of the Bye-Laws makes it abundantly clear that for the matters not specifi cally providedin the Bye-Laws, the rules applicable to the government employees wouldapply – However, as there is a specifi c provision regarding superannuationin Clause 34, the rules governing the government services in respect ofsuperannuation are not applicable to the employees of the Council unlessit is in accordance with Clause 34 of the Bye-Laws – Fundamental Rules,1922. [Paras 25, 28 and 29]Words and Phrases – “or”, “and” – Interpretation – Plea ofrespondent No.1 that clause 34 of the Bye-Laws should be read in twoparts- the fi rst part states that the Rules governing the retirement ofemployees of the Government of India as amended from time to timewould apply to the employees of the Central Council; the second partof Clause 34 which reads “or as desired by the governing body” ismerely an enabling provision empowering the governing body to takea decision whether an employee deserves to be retained beyond theprescribed age of superannuation and that such power should not beread in a negative form to clothe the governing body with the power toprescribe lesser age of superannuation than what has been prescribedby the Central Government from time to time:Held: Such argument cannot be accepted – The word “or” is normallydisjunctive and the word “and” is normally conjunctive – Both of themcan be read as vice-versa, but that interpretation is adopted only where theintention of the legislature is manifest – In the present case, the language ofClause 34 is very clear. What is important to note while reading the Clause34 is the word “or” – Thereafter, there is a proviso which says that an employee can be retained in service after prescribed age of superannuationif he continues to be physically fi t and effi cient and it is in the interest ofthe Central Counsel to retain him in the service – The expression “the rulesgoverning the retirement of employees of Government of India as amendedfrom time to time” is separated from the rest of the part of the Bye-Law by theword “or” which is disjunctive and giving natural meaning to the said wordseparates the rules that may be framed by the Government of India and therules that the Council may desire to frame as regards the age of retirementof the employees of the Council – Interpretation of Statutes. [Paras 30-32]Service Law – Age of retirement vis-à-vis service conditionsrelating to pay and allowances and revision of pay – RespondentNo.1 contended that as the terms and conditions of the services of theemployees of the Council on all other aspects like the Provident Fund/GPF, Pension, Gratuity, Leave Rules, Scales of Pay, Conduct Rules andother conditions of services are the same as applicable to the employeesof the Central Government as set out in Clauses 31, 32, 33, 42, 44 and47 respectively of the Bye-Laws, the matter of age of superannuationof the respondent No. 1 should not be treated diff erently:Held: What should be the age of superannuation is a matter of policy– It is not within the domain of the court to legislate – It is only if a policydecision or a notifi cation is arbitrary it may invite the frowns of Article 14of the Constitution – The question of age of retirement stands on a diff erentfooting from the service conditions relating to pay and allowances andrevision of pay. [Para 35]Service Law – Claim of respondent No.1-Research Assistantthat his age of superannuation be at par with the AYUSH Doctors –Infringement of Article 14 alleged:Held: It is too late in the day for the respondent No.1 to raise allsuch issues including infringement of Article 14 on the ground of artifi cialdistinction between the Research Assistant and AYUSH Doctors –Respondent No.1 knew from the date of his appointment that he was beingappointed as a Research Assistant – His service conditions and mode ofrecruitment are diff erent compared to the AYUSH Doctors – It is a diff erentthing that he might have treated the patients but that by itself would not entitle him to claim that his age of superannuation should be at par with theAYUSH Doctors – Present case is not one of discrimination – Article 14 hasno application having regard to the facts of the present case – Constitutionof India – Article 14. [Paras 37 and 39]Constitution of India – Article 226 – Extraordinary jurisdiction– Principles of law governing – Issue of Writ of certiorari – Discussed