Supreme Court of India
DR. JACOB THUDIPARA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. on 21 April 2022
68
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
A
DR. JACOB THUDIPARA
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.2974 of 2022)
APRIL 21, 2022
B
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Superannuation /Retirement – Benefit ofenhanced age of superannuation – Entitlement to – Appellant wasteacher in a 1OO% government aided private educational institutionC– He claimed entitlement to benefits of enhanced age ofsuperannuation of 65 years (from 62 years) at par with hiscounterpart teachers serving in Government Colleges andUniversities – Division Bench of High Court dismissed writ appealsfiled by Appellant and others, relying upon an earlier decision ofFull Bench of High Court wherein it was held that teachers servingDin aided private educational institutions are not entitled to get benefitof enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years – However,subsequently the said Full Court decision of the High Court was setaside by Supreme Court in Dr. R.S. Sohane case – Further, in twosubsequent decisions of High Court in Writ Appeals filed by similarlyEsituated teachers, they were held entitled for superannuation withall consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salariesand allowances of the intervening period between 62 and 65 yearsof age – On appeal, held: Submission of State that on principle of‘no work no pay’ the teachers are not entitled to any monetarybenefits for the intervening period between 62 and 65 years ofFage, cannot be accepted – Various orders passed by the High Courtin similar facts and situation required to be considered – Appellantbeing a similarly situated teacher cannot be singled out – Appellantentitled to benefit of enhanced age of superannuation i.e., 65 years– He is entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits includingGarrears of salaries and etc., as if, he would have been continued upto the age of 65 years.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Considering the various orders passed by theHigh Court in similar facts and situation and not accepting theH
submission on behalf of the State that on the principle of ‘no workno pay’ the teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits forthe intervening period between 62 years and 65 years of age,this Court is of the opinion that appellant shall be entitled to allconsequential and monetary benefits including the arrears ofsalaries and allowances for the intervening period, as if he wouldhave been retired at the age of 65 years. The appellant beingsimilarly situated teacher cannot be singled out. Even in the caseof Writ Appeal No. 378/2018 and other allied writ appeals, it wassubmitted by the State that on the principle of ‘no work no pay’such teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits. However,the High Court vide detailed judgment and order has negatedsuch a plea and defence and has observed that as the teacherswere prevented from serving up to the age of 65 years thoughthey were entitled to, as held by this Court in the case of Dr. R.S.Sohane, they cannot be denied the monetary benefits for theintervening period. It is reported that the said judgment and orderpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court has beenimplemented by the State after the Special Leave Petition againstthe said judgment and order has been dismissed by this Court.[Para 4][72-A-D]
2. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of enhanced ageof superannuation i.e., 65 years. He shall be entitled to all theconsequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salariesand etc., as if, he would have been continued up to the age of 65years. [Para 5][72-F]
Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of M.P. & others, (2019) 16SCC 796 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 16 SCC 796relied onPara 2.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2974of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2017 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 667of 2016.
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
AL. C. Patne, Raghav Pandey, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Advs. for theAppellant.
Mrs. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advs. for theRespondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BM. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 09.05.2017passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.667/2016, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal, originalCwrit petitioner – appellant herein has preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant herein was serving as a teacher. The disputearose with respect to the age of superannuation/retirement, namely,whether, the appellant-teacheris entitled to get the benefits of enhancedage of superannuation of 65 years at par with his counterpart teachersserving in Government Colleges and Universities.D
2.1 The appellant was serving in 1OO% government aided privateeducational institution. At the relevant time, the Full Bench of the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Dr. S.C. Jain Vs. State ofMadhya Pradesh and others (W.A. No. 950/2015) took the view thatthe teachers serving in the aided private educational institutions are notEentitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuationof 65 years.The appellant and others filed Writ Appealsbefore the High Court whichcame to be dismissed, relying upon the case of Dr. S.C. Jain (supra).However, subsequently the decision of the Full Bench of the High Courtin the case of Dr. S.C. Jain (supra) has been set aside by this Court videFjudgment and order dated 07.05.2019 in C.A. No. 4675-4676 of 2019 inthe case of Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of M.P. & others; (2019) 16SCC 796, and it is held that the teachers like the appellant are entitled toget the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years. Theparties to the aforesaid appeals filed M.A. Nos. 1838-1839 of 2019withI.A. No. 119950 of 2019 before this Court claiming the payment ofGoutstanding salaries for the intervening period. This Court disposed ofthe aforesaid interlocutory application and clarified that they can approachthe High Court for redressal of their grievances with regard to the paymentof outstanding salaries of intervening period. As observed hereinabove,the appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court has beenHdismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court relying upon the decision of Full Court in the case of Dr. S.C. Jain (supra), which hassubsequently been set aside by this Court. Therefore, it is the case onbehalf of the appellant that he shall be entitled to continue up to enhancedage of superannuation i.e., 65 years and shall be entitled to all the monetarybenefits as if, he would have been continued up to the age of 65 years.
2.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant hasheavily relied upon the subsequent decision of the Division Bench of theHigh Court dated 29.11.2019 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1857/2019 filedby a similarly situated teacher of a government aided private college bywhich the Division Bench of the High Court has condoned 1227 days ofdelay in filing intra-court appeal andhas held him entitled forsuperannuation with all consequential and monetary benefits includingarrears of salaries and allowances of the intervening period, by followingthe law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane (supra).
2.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has alsorelied upon the common judgment and order dated 07.09.2021 passedby the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 378/2018and other allied appeals, by which, after the review applications wereallowed, the aforesaid writ appeals were restored to the file and theDivision Bench of the High Court has directed the State to pay all theconsequential and monetary benefits to all similarly situated teachersand assistant professors for the intervening period between 62 yearsand 65 years of age. It is submitted that all similarly situated teachersare therefore, paid all consequential and monetary benefits for the periodbetween 62 years and 65 years of age, as if they would have beencontinued up to 65 years of age.
3. Mrs. Mrinal Gopal Elker, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the respondent- State, as such, is not in a position to dispute theaforesaid factual aspects. However, she has tried to distinguish the factsby submitting that when this Court passed an orderearlier to pay thesalaries to them after they had completed the age of 62 years, all ofthemwere directed to be taken on duty by way of an interim order andactually they worked up to the age of 65 years. In the present case, theappellant did not work and therefore on the principle of ‘no work nopay’, he is not entitled to any monetary benefits for the intervening period,between 62 years and 65 years of age.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and considering the various orders passed by the High A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
ACourt, by which in similar facts and situation and not accepting thesubmission on behalf of the State that on the principle of ‘no work nopay’ the teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits for theintervening period between 62 years and 65 years of age, we are of theopinion that appellant shall be entitled to all consequential and monetarybenefits including the arrears of salaries and allowances for theBintervening period, as if he would have been retired at the age of 65years. The appellant being similarly situated teacher cannot be singledout. Even in the case of Writ Appeal No. 378/2018 and other allied writappeals, it was submitted by the State that on the principle of ‘no workno pay’ such teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits. However,Cthe High Court vide detailed judgment and order has negated such aplea and defence and has observed that as the teachers were preventedfrom serving up to the age of 65 years though they were entitled to, asheld by this Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane (supra), they cannotbe denied the monetary benefits for the intervening period. It is reportedthat the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of theDHigh Court has been implemented by the State after the Special LeavePetition against the said judgment and order has been dismissed by thisCourt.
5. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons statedabove, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and orderEpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A. No. 667/2016is hereby quashed and set aside, which was passed relying upon thedecision of Full Bench of High Court in W.A. No. 950/2015, which hasbeen subsequently set aside by this Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane(supra). It is held that the appellant herein is entitled to the benefit ofFenhanced age of superannuation i.e., 65 years. He shall be entitled to allthe consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salariesand etc., as if, he would have been continued up to the age of 65 years.The arrears etc., shall be paid to the appellant within a period of sixweeks’ from today. However, considering the fact that there was a hugedelay in preferring the appeal, which has been condoned by this Court,Gthe appellant shall not be entitled to any interest on the arrears for theperiod between 09.05.2017 till the filing of the present appeal.