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

Popular posts from this blog

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर