with Lecturer (Polytechnic) and for enhancement of his retirement age from 60 years to 62 years had been examined and rejected by the competent authority. The respondent has also prayed for directions to the petitioners for being declared as a holder of a teaching post/lecturer and seeks entitlement to the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme of the AICTE. 3. By the impugned order, while issuing notice to the respondent (petitioner herein) and granting time to the counsel for the respondent to file a reply, the Tribunal had adjourned the case to 31.5.2016 and passed an interim order to the effect that the respondent (petitioner herein) will be allowed to continue in service till further orders, at his own risk and that his continuance in service shall not confer any right on him. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners/Govt. of NCT of Delhi has filed the present petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid order inasmuch as the respondent had deliberately chosen to approach the Tribunal at the eleventh hour knowing very well that, vide order dated 19.1.2016, he had been intimated of the date of his superannuation and his representation for considering his age of retirement at 62 years at par with Lecturers (Polytechnic) had been rejected and duly conveyed to him on 2.12.2015. He further states that vide letter dated 19.1.2016, the petitioners had requested the respondent to provide necessary documents for processing his retirement case. Therefore, the respondent cannot plead that he was ignorant of the date of his superannuation for him to have approached the Tribunal as late as in the second half of April, 2016, and if he did choose to approach the Tribunal so belatedly, then he was in any case disentitled to any interim relief particularly of the nature granted by
