DR. JACOB THUDIPARAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

68                       [2022]
              SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 68
                             REPORTS                         [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A                         DR. JACOB THUDIPARA
                                        v.
               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No.2974 of 2022)
B                               APRIL 21, 2022
              [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
            Service Law – Superannuation /Retirement – Benefit of
     enhanced age of superannuation – Entitlement to – Appellant was
     teacher in a 1OO% government aided private educational institution
C    – He claimed entitlement to benefits of enhanced age of
     superannuation of 65 years (from 62 years) at par with his
     counterpart teachers serving in Government Colleges and
     Universities – Division Bench of High Court dismissed writ appeals
     filed by Appellant and others, relying upon an earlier decision of
     Full Bench of High Court wherein it was held that teachers serving
D    in aided private educational institutions are not entitled to get benefit
     of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years – However,
     subsequently the said Full Court decision of the High Court was set
     aside by Supreme Court in Dr. R.S. Sohane case – Further, in two
     subsequent decisions of High Court in Writ Appeals filed by similarly
E    situated teachers, they were held entitled for superannuation with
     all consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salaries
     and allowances of the intervening period between 62 and 65 years
     of age – On appeal, held: Submission of State that on principle of
     ‘no work no pay’ the teachers are not entitled to any monetary
     benefits for the intervening period between 62 and 65 years of
F    age, cannot be accepted – Various orders passed by the High Court
     in similar facts and situation required to be considered – Appellant
     being a similarly situated teacher cannot be singled out – Appellant
     entitled to benefit of enhanced age of superannuation i.e., 65 years
     – He is entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits including
G    arrears of salaries and etc., as if, he would have been continued up
     to the age of 65 years.
           Allowing the appeal, the Court
          HELD:1. Considering the various orders passed by the
     High Court in similar facts and situation and not accepting the
H
                                        68
     DR. JACOB THUDIPARA v.THE STATE OF MADHYA                         69
                  PRADESH & ORS.

submission on behalf of the State that on the principle of ‘no work    A
no pay’ the teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits for
the intervening period between 62 years and 65 years of age,
this Court is 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
                                                                       B
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            C
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, they cannot be denied the monetary benefits for the
intervening period. It is reported that the said judgment and order
                                                                       D
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court has been
implemented by the State after the Special Leave Petition against
the 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 age
of superannuation i.e., 65 years. He shall be entitled to all the      E
consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salaries
and etc., as if, he would have been continued up to the age of 65
years. [Para 5][72-F]
      Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of M.P. & others, (2019) 16
      SCC 796 – relied on.                                             F

                      Case Law Reference
(2019) 16 SCC 796              relied on                 Para 2.1
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2974
of 2022.                                                               G
      From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2017 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 667
of 2016.

                                                                       H
70             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A           L. C. Patne, Raghav Pandey, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Advs. for the
     Appellant.
            Mrs. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advs. for the
     Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B           M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
     and order dated 09.05.2017passed 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
C    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 superannuation/retirement, namely,
     whether, the appellant-teacheris 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.
D
            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
E    entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuationof 65 years.
     The appellant and others filed Writ Appealsbefore 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
F    judgment and order dated 07.05.2019 in C.A. No. 4675-4676 of 2019 in
     the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of M.P. & others; (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. 1838-1839 of 2019with
     I.A. No. 119950 of 2019 before this Court claiming the payment of
G    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
H    dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court relying upon the
      DR. JACOB THUDIPARA v.THE STATE OF MADHYA                                  71
             PRADESH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

decision of Full Court in the case of Dr. S.C. Jain (supra), which has           A
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.
       2.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has              B
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 intra-court appeal andhas held him entitled for
superannuation with all consequential and monetary benefits including            C
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              D
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 the intervening period between 62 years
and 65 years of age. It is submitted that all similarly situated teachers        E
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           F
aforesaid factual aspects. However, she has tried to distinguish the facts
by submitting that when this Court passed an orderearlier to pay the
salaries to them after they had completed the age of 62 years, all of
themwere 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
                                                                                 G
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
                                                                                 H
72             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A    Court, by which in similar facts and 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
B
     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,
C    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
D
     High Court has been implemented by the 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
E    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
F    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,
G    the appellant shall not be entitled to any interest on 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.

     Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                         Appeal allowed.
H