Jacob Thudipara vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Dr. Jacob Thudipara ..Appellant (S)

Versus

The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ..Respondent (S)

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,

Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 667/2016,

by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal,

original writ petitioner – appellant herein has preferred the

present appeal.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.04.21

2. The appellant herein was serving as a teacher. The dispute 16:56:56 IST Reason:

arose with respect to the age of 1 superannuation/retirement, namely, whether, the

appellant­teacher is entitled to get the benefits of

enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years at par with

his counterpart teachers serving in Government Colleges

and Universities.

2.1 The appellant was serving in 1OO% government aided

private educational institution. At the relevant time, the

Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the

case of Dr. S.C. Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and

others (W.A. No. 950/2015) took the view that the teachers

serving in the aided private educational institutions are

not entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of

superannuation of 65 years. The appellant and others filed

Writ Appeals before the High Court which came to be

dismissed, relying upon the case of Dr. S.C. Jain (supra). However, subsequently the decision of the Full Bench of

the High Court in the case of Dr. S.C. Jain (supra) has

been set aside by this Court vide judgment and order

dated 07.05.2019 in C.A. No. 4675­4676 of 2019 in the

case of Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of M.P. & others;

2 (2019) 16 SCC 796, and it is held that the teachers like the

appellant are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of

superannuation of 65 years. The parties to the aforesaid

appeals filed M.A. Nos. 1838­1839 of 2019 with I.A. No.

119950 of 2019 before this Court claiming the payment of

outstanding salaries for the intervening period. This Court

disposed of the aforesaid interlocutory application and

clarified that they can approach the High Court for

redressal of their grievances with regard to the payment of

outstanding salaries of intervening period. As observed

hereinabove, the appeal preferred by the appellant before

the High Court has been dismissed 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 has subsequently

been set aside by this Court. Therefore, it is the case on

behalf of the appellant that he shall be entitled to continue

up to enhanced age of superannuation i.e., 65 years and

shall be entitled to all the monetary benefits as if, he would

have been continued up to the age of 65 years. 3 2.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

heavily relied upon the subsequent decision of the Division

Bench of the High Court dated 29.11.2019 passed in Writ

Appeal No. 1857/2019 filed by a similarly situated teacher

of a government aided private college by which the Division

Bench of the High Court has condoned 1227 days of delay

in filing intra­court appeal and has held him entitled for

superannuation with all consequential and monetary

benefits including arrears of salaries and allowances of the

intervening period, by following the 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

also relied upon the common judgment and order dated

07.09.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court in Writ Appeal No. 378/2018 and other allied

appeals, by which, after the review applications were

allowed, the aforesaid writ appeals were restored to the file

and the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the

State to pay all the consequential and monetary benefits to

all similarly situated teachers and assistant professors for

4 the intervening period between 62 years and 65 years of

age. It is submitted that all similarly situated teachers are

therefore, paid all consequential and monetary benefits for

the period between 62 years and 65 years of age, as if they

would have been continued up to 65 years of age.

3. Mrs. Mrinal Gopal Elker, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent­ State, as such, is not in a

position to dispute the aforesaid factual aspects. However,

she has tried to distinguish the facts by submitting that

when this Court passed an order earlier to pay the salaries

to them after they had completed the age of 62 years, all of

them were directed to be taken on duty by way of an

interim order and actually they worked up to the age of 65

years. In the present case, the appellant did not work and

therefore on the principle of ‘no work no pay’, 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 the

respective parties and considering the various orders

passed by the High Court, by which in similar facts and

5 situation and not accepting the submission on behalf of

the State that on the principle of ‘no work no pay’ the

teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits for the

intervening period between 62 years and 65 years of age,

we are of the opinion that appellant shall be entitled to all

consequential and monetary benefits including the arrears

of salaries and allowances for the intervening period, as if

he would have been retired at the age of 65 years. The

appellant being similarly situated teacher cannot be

singled out. Even in the case of Writ Appeal No. 378/2018

and other allied writ appeals, it was submitted 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 negated such

a plea and defence and has observed that as the teachers

were prevented from serving up to the age of 65 years

though they were entitled to, as held by this Court in the

case of Dr. R.S. Sohane (supra), they cannot be denied the

monetary benefits for the intervening period. It is reported

that the said judgment and order passed by the Division

Bench of the High Court has been implemented by the

6 State after the Special Leave Petition against the said

judgment and order has been dismissed by this Court.

5. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated

above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court in W.A. No. 667/2016 is hereby quashed and

set aside, which was passed relying upon the decision of

Full Bench of High Court in W.A. No. 950/2015, which has

been 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 of enhanced age of

superannuation i.e., 65 years. He shall be entitled to all

the consequential and monetary benefits including arrears

of salaries and 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 six weeks’ from today.

However, considering the fact that there was a huge delay

in preferring the appeal, which has been condoned by this

Court, the appellant shall not be entitled to any interest on

7 the arrears for the period between 09.05.2017 till the filing

of the present appeal.

6. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to

costs.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi, April 21, 2022.

8