Dr. Jacob Thudipara vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Dr. Jacob Thudipara vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2974 OF 2022
Dr. Jacob Thudipara ..Appellant (S)
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T
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.
2. The appellant herein was serving as a teacher. The dispute
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
Comments
Post a Comment