2021 INSC 0336
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) 
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.”
4. By   the   common   final   order   dated   24.08.2017,   the   Tribunal
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”
8. The   Writ   Petitions   challenging   the   Tribunal’s   common   order
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
Sharma, and Dr. H. P. Singh vs. Union of India 1
 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.
13. On   the   other   hand,   the   learned   counsel   for   respondents   argue
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
Pandey 2
,  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: 
“ 17.   Before   adverting   to   the   decisions   relied
upon   by   the   learned   counsel  for   the   parties,   we
may   observe   that   although   direction   to   pay   full
back   wages   on   a   declaration   that   the   order   of
termination   was   invalid   used   to   be   the   usual
result   but   now,   with   the   passage   of   time,   a
pragmatic   view   of   the   matter   is   being   taken   by
the   court   realizing   that   an   industry   may   not   be
compelled   to   pay   to   the   workman   for   the   period
during   which   he   apparently   contributed   little   or
nothing at all to it and/ or for a period that was
spent   unproductively   as   a   result   whereof   the
employer   would   be   compelled   to   go   back   to   a
situation   which   prevailed   many   years   ago,
namely, when the workman was retrenched.”
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.
16. The   learned   senior   counsel   for   appellant   by   placing   reliance
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
Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania 3
,  stated the following : 
3  (2010) 9 SCC 437
12

“ 15.   …The   maxim   "Actus   Curiae   neminem
gravabit",   which   means   that   the   act   of   the   Court
shall  prejudice   no­one,   becomes   applicable   in   such
a   case.   In   such   a   situation   the   Court   is   under   an
obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the
act   of   the   Court.   Thus,   any   undeserved   or   unfair
advantage   gained   by   a   party   invoking   the
jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised, as the
institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer
any advantage on a party by the delayed action of
the Court .”
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
vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors. 4
,  stated that: 
“ 51. ...Till the declaration is made, the incumbent
renders   service   and   when   he   has   rendered
service   he   cannot   be   deprived   of   his   salary.
Denial   of   pay   for   the   service   rendered
tantamounts   to   forced   labour   which   is
4  (2014) 1 SCC 161
13

impermissible.   When   an   appointment   is
admitted   and   the   incumbent   functions   in   the
post   and   neither   suspended   nor   removed   from
service,   he   is   entitled   to   get   salary,   for   it   is   his
legal   right   and   it   is   the   duty   of   the   employer   to
pay   it   as   per   the   terms   and   conditions   of   the
appointment.…”
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   &
Anr.   vs.   B.   D.   Singhal   &   Ors. 5
,   this   Court   while   dealing   with   a
comparable issue, declined to give retrospective application to the U.P.
State   Government   order   dated   30 th
  September   2012,   which   extended
the   age   of   superannuation   from   58   years   to   60   years.   The   arrears   of
salary to respondent employees who had retired on 31 st
 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
applied  the  U.P.  State  Government order  dated  30 th
  September 2012,
from   29 th
  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

Uttar   Pradesh 6
  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. I n   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