IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.23128 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 06, 2011 Shyam Sunder ….Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. S.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the interim order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal declining the interim relief of staying the retirement of the petitioner from the post of officiating Principal. 2. There is a dispute with regard to the age of superannuation of the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner is to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years, C.W.P. No.23128 of 2010 (O&M) -2- whereas the case of the petitioner is that he could be retired only at the age of 60/65 years. 3. It is well settled that in cases where the age of retirement is disputed, the grant of interim relief would be an exception. The general rule is not to grant such a relief because if the petitioner succeeds in persuading the Court then he would become entitled to all the monetary benefits in the shape of pay, pension and other retiral dues. However, if the petitioner loses, then there is no way that the employer could be compensated and also the persons, who are waiting in queue, would be unnecesarily delayed in their career to advance further. Therefore, in such like cases, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents. 4. In view of the above, we uphold the order passed by the Tribunal and leave it to the Tribunal to decide the Original Application on merit, as per law. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 06, 2011 JUDGE satish