P.C. MODIversusTHE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER

                 [2023] 16 S.C.R. 955 : 2023 INSC 1067



                            CASE DETAILS
                              P.C. MODI
                                     v.
    THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA VIDYALAYA AND
                    ANOTHER
                     (Civil Appeal No.4267 of 2011)
                          DECEMBER 13, 2023
           [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
                             HEADNOTES


      Issues for consideration: (i) Whether a PTI/Sports Officer falls within
the expression “teacher”.
      (ii) Whether the appellant (working as a sports officer/PTI) would have
been entitled to continue in the service of the respondent No.1-University
as a PTI till he completed the age of 62 years, at par with other teachers of
the Vishwavidyalaya.
      Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 – Jawaharlal
Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964 – Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi
Vishwa Vidyalaya (General Condition of Service Regulations, 1929)
– The appellant was working as a sports officer/PTI in the College of
Agriculture under the respondent No.1-University – Appellant’s case
that since sports officer/PTI working in the respondent No.1-University
fall under the definition of “teacher”, their age of superannuation should
also be treated as 62 years – Propriety:
      Held: The Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ
petition filed by the appellant – It was held that the appellant would fall
within the definition of a “teacher” in terms of Statute 32 and he was liable
to be retired on attaining the age of 62 years – However, the Division
Bench of the High Court upheld the order of retirement passed by the
respondent No. 1-University in respect of the appellant, retiring him on
attaining the age of 60 years – In the instant case, a comparison of the
fact situation and the provisions of the relevant Act and Regulations with

                                    955
956          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 16 S.C.R.


those analysed in the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao, would show clear
parity – Just as under the A.P. Act where the definition of a “teacher”
contained in Section 2(n) was an expansive one and extended not only
to those persons who impart instructions, conduct and carry on research
work for extension programme, but also those who were declared to be
a teacher within the purview of the definition under the Statute framed
by the State Government, same is the position under the J.N.K.V.V. Act,
the Statute and relevant Regulations – Therefore, it is declared that the
appellant, who was discharging the duties of a PTI/Sports Officer, would
fall within the definition of a “teacher” and would have been entitled to be
continued in service till completion of 62 years of age – As the appellant
was prematurely retired by the respondents at the age of 60 years, it is
held that he shall be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits
including, arrear of salary, etc., had he continued in service upto to the
age of 62 years – Judgment passed by the Single Judge of the High Court
restored. [Paras 11, 12]
       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
     P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and Another
(1997) 8 SCC 350 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 201 – relied on.
     State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009)
13 SCC 635 : [2009] 12 SCR 23 – distinguished.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4267 of 2011.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2009 of the High Court of
M.P. at indore in WA No.126 of 2008.
      Appearances:
     L. C. Patne, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Raghav Pandey, Ms. Gauri Pandey,
Harshit Shishodiya, Advs. for the Appellant.
   Niraj Sharma, Ms. Mahima Sharma, Ms. Tanya Raizada, G. A. V. Ravi
Kumar, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Raghav Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
     P.C. MODI v. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA                             957
              VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER


       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                                   JUDGMENT
     HIMA KOHLI, J.
      1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by
the judgement and order dated 14th December, 2009, passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Indore in
a Writ Appeal1 filed by the respondents herein allowing their appeal and
setting aside the order dated 26th April, 2005, passed by the learned Single
Judge2 wherein it was held that the appellant, who was working as a sports
officer/physical training instructor3 in the respondent No. 1 – Jawaharlal
Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya4, falls under the definition of a “teacher”
and is entitled to retire at the age of 62 years, at par with teachers serving
in the respondent no. 1 – University.
     2. We may first elucidate the facts relevant for deciding the case at hand.
     2.1 The respondent No. 1 – University was established under the
Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 19635, enacted by the
Madhya Pradesh Legislature. In exercise of the powers conferred under
the Act, the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964 6 was
framed which came into force with effect from 1st December, 1964.
      2.2 The appellant was working as a sports officer/PTI in the College
of Agriculture under the respondent No. 1 – University. Vide order dated
27th June, 2000, issued by the respondent No. 1 – University, the appellant
was informed that on attaining the age of 60 years, he would stand retired
from the service of the respondent No. 1 – University with effect from 30th
June, 2000. The appellant claimed that he was entitled to be continued in
service till 30th June, 2002, which period was being illegally curtailed by the
respondent No. 1 – University. The said plea was based on the appellant’s



1   In Writ Appeal No. 126 of 2008
2   In Writ Petition No. 1322 of 2022
3   For short ‘PTI’
4   For short ‘the University’
5   For short ‘the J.N.K.V.V. Act’
6   For short ‘the Statute’
958              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 16 S.C.R.


stand that he falls in the purview of a “teacher” in terms of Statute 32 of
the J.N.K.V.V Act as also in terms of Regulation 4 of the Jawaharlal Nehru
Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (General Condition of Service Regulations, 1929)7
and he would be due to superannuate only upon attaining the age of 62
years on 30th June, 2002. Further, the appellant relied on the letters dated
27th July, 1998, 22nd September, 1998 and 06th November, 1998 issued by
the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education)
that had increased the age of retirement of physical education personnel to
62 years. The appellant submitted a representation to the respondents stating
that by virtue of the aforesaid decision, the age of teachers was raised by
the State Government from 60 years to 62 years with effect from the year
1998 and the said decision also covered the respondent No. 1 – University,
thereby entitling teachers serving in the University to superannuate at the
age of 62 years instead of 60 years. He urged that since sports officer/PTI
working in the respondent No. 1 – University fall under the definition of
“teacher”, their age of superannuation should also be treated as 62 years.
      2.3 Aggrieved by the order of retirement issued by the respondent No.
1 - University, on the eve of his attaining the age of 60 years and on not
receiving a positive response, the appellant approached the High Court and
filed a writ petition2. The said petition was opposed by the respondent No.
1 – University stating that the age of superannuation of employees working
in the University is governed by Statute 11(4) and sub-clause (d) of Statute
11(4) specifically provides that the non-teaching service personnel shall be
superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years. The appellant being a non-
teaching service personnel, was therefore to retire on attaining the age of 60
years. It was also stated that vide order dated 17th May, 2000, the Education
Department of the State Government had decided that the retirement age of
sports officers/PTIs shall be 60 years. Further, the Agriculture Department
of the State Government had issued a Memorandum dated 12th July, 2000,
clarifying interalia that as per the Statute of the University, the post of sports
officers wasn’t treated as a teaching post and therefore, their retirement age
could not be raised from 60 years to 62 years. Reference was additionally
made to the minutes of the 160th meeting conducted by the Board of



7     For short ‘the Regulation’
     P.C. MODI v. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA                             959
       VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]

Management of the respondent No. 1 - University on 10th June, 2000 wherein
it was decided that those appointed to the post of sports officer/PTI working
in the University being non-teaching service personnel, shall superannuate
on attaining the age of 60 years.
      2.4 Vide judgement dated 26th April, 2005, relying on the decision of
this Court in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and
Another8 and the decision of coordinate benches of the High Court, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition2 filed by the appellant. It
was held that the appellant would fall within the definition of a “teacher” in
terms of Statute 32 and he was liable to be retired on attaining the age of 62
years. As a result, the order dated 27th June, 2000, issued by the respondent
No. 1 – University retiring the appellant from service on 30 th June, 2000,
was quashed and set aside and since he had already been retired in the year
2002, the respondents were directed to pay emoluments and other benefits
including retiral benefits to the appellant as if he had continued in service
up to the age of 62 years.
      2.5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the respondents filed a
writ appeal1 which was originally registered as a Letters Patent Appeal
and subsequently re-registered as a Writ Appeal1 under Section 2 of the
Uchha Nyalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. By the
impugned judgement, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal filed by
the respondents and observed that Statute 32 recognizes only professors,
associate professors, assistant professors as teachers and looking at the job
profile of the appellant, he does not fall under the definition of a teacher. For
holding so, the Division Bench cited the decision of a three Judges Bench
of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Ramesh Chandra
Bajpai9 and opined that the decision of a two Judges Bench of this Court
in P.S. Ramamohana Rao’s case (supra) relied on by the appellant, having
been duly noted in Ramesh Chandra Bajpai’s case (supra) that was decided
subsequently, the proposition laid down by the two Judges Bench should
not be automatically extended to other cases where employees are governed
by a different set of rules.



8   (1997) 8 SCC 350
9   (2009) 13 SCC 635
960            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 16 S.C.R.


      2.6 Observing further that the definition of the word ‘teacher’ in Section
2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh Act, 196310 which was the subject matter of
consideration in P.S. Ramamohana Rao’s case (supra) was an expansive one
and could not apply to the employees of the respondent No. 1 – University
who are governed by the Statute under the Act and the Regulations made
thereunder, the Division Bench held that order passed by the learned Single
Judge was unsustainable. Resultantly, the order of retirement passed by the
respondent No. 1 – University in respect of the appellant, retiring him on
attaining the age of 60 years, was upheld. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid
decision, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
      3. For deciding as to whether a PTI/Sports Officer falls within the
expression “teacher” and if so, whether the appellant herein would have
been entitled to continue in the service of the respondent No.1 – University
as a PTI till he completed the age of 62 years, at par with other teachers of
the Vishwavidyalaya, we may first examine the relevant provisions of the
Act, the Statute and the Regulations.
      3.1 Following is the definition of ‘Teacher’ of the Vishwa Vidyalaya,
as prescribed in Section 2(x) of the Act:
      “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
      ……
      (x) “Teacher of the Vishwa Vidyalaya” means a person appointed
      or recognised by the Vishwa Vidyalaya for the purpose of imparting
      instructions and/or conducting and guiding research and/or extension
      programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the Statutes
      to be teacher”
     As can be gleaned from the above definition, the word “teacher” has
not been stated precisely. The word “teacher” has simply been described
to mean a person appointed or recognized by the “Vishwa Vidyalaya”
who would be required to impart instructions, conduct and guide research,
conduct other extension programmes and extends to a person who may be
declared as a teacher under the relevant Statute.



10 For short ‘the A.P. Act’
P.C. MODI v. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA                          961
  VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]

3.2 Relevant extract of Statute 11 (4) is as under:
     “11. Conditions of service etc. of other officers :-
     (1)   ××××
     (2)   ××××
     (3)   ××××
     (4)   Every employee shall retire from the service of the Vishwa
           Vidyalaya in the afternoon of the last day of the month in
           which he attains the age of superannuating, as prescribed
           below :-
           (a)   “Officers” as defined under Section 12 of the Act
                 and Statute 3 (except the Chancellor and the Vice –
                 Chancellor) shall be superannuated on attaining the
                 age of 60(sixty) years, provided that those appointed
                 as Officers by promotion or otherwise but have been
                 engaged in teaching for not less than 20 years and
                 holds a lien on a post in the Vishwa Vidyalaya shall
                 be superannuated on attaining the age of 62 (sixty
                 two) years.
           (b) The “Teachers” as defined under Section 2(x) of
               the Act and Statute 32 shall be superannuated on
               attaining the age of 62 (sixty two) years.
           (c)   “Class-IV employees” as defined in Regulation
                 No.4 of the JNKVV Service (General Conditions of
                 Service) Regulations, 1969 shall be superannuated on
                 attaining the age of 62 (sixty two) years.
           (d)   “Non-teaching service personnel” of Class-I, II &
                 III categories as defined in Regulation No.4 of the
                 JNKVV Service (General Conditions of Service)
                 Regulations, 1969 shall be superannuated on attaining
                 the age of 60 (Sixty two) years, except the teacher
                 of primary School working in the Class III cadre of
                 Vishwa Vidyalaya who shall be superannuated on
962           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 16 S.C.R.


                       attaining the age of 62 (sixty two) years on or after
                       31.10.2002.
                             Provided that on attaining the age of
                       superannuation, any employee whose date of birth
                       is the first date of the month, shall retire from the
                       services in the afternoon of the last date of the
                       preceding month.
                                   Provided further that:
                       (i)   All Vishwa Vidyalaya employees may, in the
                             public interest or in the Vishwa Vidyalaya
                             interest be retired at any time after they attain the
                             age of 50 years or 20 years of qualifying service,
                             on three months notice without assigning any
                             reason or on payment of three months pay and
                             allowances in lieu of such a notice;
                       (ii) The cases of such persons as have been re-
                            employed in the Vishwa Vidyalaya Service, after
                            retirement from Government Service, shall be
                            governed by the terms and conditions of their re-
                            employment in this Vishwa Vidyalaya service;
                            and,”
                                                            [Emphasis added]
      3.3 Statute 32 defines the word “Teacher” in the following terms :
      “Vishwa Vidyalaya Teachers:
      (1)   Teachers of the Vishwa Vidyalaya shall be either-
            (a)   Servants of the Vishwa Vidyalaya paid by the Vishwa
                  Vidyalaya for imparting instructions and/or conducting and
                  guiding research and/or extension and/or programmes as-
                  (i) Professor,
                  (ii) Associate Professor,
                  (iii) Assistant Professor.
     P.C. MODI v. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA                            963
       VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]

     Explanation :
                Any “Teacher” subsequently appointed as an “Officer” as
           defined under Section 12 of the Act and Statute 3 (except the
           Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor) by promotion or otherwise
           and has been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years
           and holds a lien on a post in the V.V. shall also be a teacher,
           under this Statute.
                 (b)   Person appointed by the Board as Honorary Teachers
                       in any of the aforementioned categories on such
                       terms and conditions as the Board may prescribed by
                       Regulations.
           (2)   A Teacher shall be eligible to impart instructions and/or
                 conduct of guide research and/or extension programme
                 only up to such standard for which he is recognized as such
                 in accordance with the Regulations made by the Board in
                 this behalf.
           (3)   A Teacher shall perform such functions and discharge
                 such duties as may be prescribed by Regulations by the
                 Academic Council.
           (4)   The word ‘Teacher/Teacher’ wherever it occurs includes
                 person engaged in Research and Extension activities.”
      As can be seen from Statute 32 quoted above, teachers are described
as those discharging their duties by imparting instructions and/or conducting
and guiding research and/or extension programmes in different capacities
as Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor. Statute 11(4) (b)
specifies the age of retirement of “teachers” as 62 years whereas the age of
retirement of those described as non-teaching service personnel is 60 years.
     3.4 Vishwa Vidyalaya Services have been classified under Regulation
4 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Services (General
Conditions of Service) Regulations, 19697 in the following manner:
     “(i) . Officer of the Vishwa Vidyalaya U/s 12 of the Jawaharlal Nehru
     Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1963 and Statute 3 except the Chancellor
     and the Vice-Chancellor.
964           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 16 S.C.R.


      (ii) Teaching staff of the Vishwa Vidyalaya as defined under Statute
      32 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Statutes, 1964.
      (iii) Non-Teaching services personnel of the JNKVV-
      (a) JNKVV Service CI-I
      (b) JNKVV Service CI-II
      (c) JNKVV Service CI-III
           (i) Ministerial
           (ii) Non-Ministerial
      (d) JNKVV Service CI-IV ”
      4. It is evident on examining the relevant provisions of the Act,
Statute and the Regulations that they do not specifically indicate the duties
required to be discharged by a PTI/Sports Officer and therefore, one has to
fall back on the definition of Sports Teacher as contained in Section 2(x) of
the J.N.K.V.V Act read with Statute 32(1) of the Statute. To examine as to
whether the appellant would come within the definition of a “teacher” and
thereby be entitled to continue in service till completion of 60 years, it would
be necessary to see the nature of job performed by a PTI/Sports Officer.
      5. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, he has made a specific
averment in para 6(4) that “a Sports Officer/PTI in a college is very much
a “Teacher” because he imparts instructions to the students of the college
in Physical Education”. Pertinently, in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent No.1 – University, it has not been disputed that the appellant
was working as a PTI/Sports Officer. Nor is there any specific denial to the
averments made by the appellant, in the corresponding para of the counter
affidavit regarding the duties discharged by the appellant, namely, imparting
instructions to students of the College in Physical Education. The learned
Single Judge has taken note of this position in the order dated 26th April,
2005 and made the following observations :
      “The petitioner in ground No.4 of the petition has clearly stated Sports
      Officer is a Teacher because he imparts instructions to the students
      of the College in physical education and in reply to above ground
      the respondents has only submitted that the petitioner has no ground
      to get any relief from this Hon’ble Court. There is no specific denial
     P.C. MODI v. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA                             965
       VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]

     on behalf of the respondent to this effect. It is clear from the duties
     of Sports Officer that he gives instructions and teaches the students
     with regard to sports and he is related with the sports activities of the
     University which is a part and partial of the education.”
      6. Going further, the learned Single Judge sought to draw strength
from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P.S. Ramamohana
Rao (supra) where a similar issue relating to the entitlement of the appellant
therein to continue in the service of the A.P. Agricultural University as a
Director of Physical Education till he completed the age of 58 years or 60
years came up for consideration. After examining the relevant provisions
of the A.P. Act and the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University (Conditions
of Service) Regulations, 1965, the appeal filed by the appellant therein
was allowed and it was held that the duties being discharged by him as
a Physical Director brought him within the definition of a “teacher” and
therefore, he was entitled to continue in service till he completed 60 years
of age. The factors that weighed with the Court for holding so, have been
expressed as below :
     “9. From the aforesaid affidavit, it is clear that a Physical Director
     has multifarious duties. He not only arranges games and sports for
     the students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports
     material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-
     class and inter-college tournaments and accompanies the students’ team
     when they go for the inter-university tournaments. For that purpose
     it is one of his important duties to guide them about the rules of the
     various games and sports. It is well known that different games and
     sports have different rules and practices and unless the students are
     guided about the said rules and practices they will not be able to play
     the games and participate in the sports in a proper manner. Further,
     in our view, it is inherent in the duties of a Physical Director that he
     imparts to the students various skills and techniques of these games
     and sports. There are a large number of indoor and outdoor games
     in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has to teach
     them several skills and techniques of these games apart from the rules
     applicable to these games.
          ×××         ×××         ×××        ×××
966           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 16 S.C.R.


      19. ……... It may be that the Physical Director gives his guidance or
      teaching to the students only in the evenings after the regular classes
      are over. It may also be that the University has not prescribed in writing
      any theoretical and practical classes for the students so far as physical
      education is concerned. But as pointed by us earlier, among various
      duties of the Physical Director, expressly or otherwise, are included
      the duty to teach the skills of various games as well as their rules and
      practices. The said duties bring him clearly within the main part of the
      definition as a “teacher”. We, therefore, do not accept the contention
      raised in the additional counter-affidavit of the University.”
     7. It is noteworthy that the definition of the word “teacher” as contained
in Section 2(n) of the A.P. Act is para materia with Section 2(x) of the
J.N.K.V.V. Act. Both the provisions are extracted below for comparison:
      Section 2 (n) of the A.P. Act:
      “2. (n) ‘teacher’ includes a professor, reader, lecturer or other
      person appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose of
      imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension
      programmes, and any person declared by the statutes to be a teacher;”
      Section 2(x) of the J.N.K.V.V. Act :
      “2 (x) Teacher of the Vishwa Vidyalaya” means a person appointed
      or recognised by the Vishwa Vidyalaya for the purpose of imparting
      instructions and /or conducting and guiding research and/or extension
      programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the Statues
      to be teacher”
      8. Thus, it can be seen that the definition “teacher” is inclusive in
nature and not just confined to a Professor, Associate Professor or Assistant
Professor, as defined in Statute 32. When Section 2(n) of the A.P. Act is read
in conjunction with Statute 32, the word “teacher” encompasses one who
is enjoined to impart instructions and/or conduct and guide research and/or
extension programmes. The definition being inclusive in nature would have
to be read expansively and when read in the context of PTI/Sports Officer, it
cannot be denied that the appellant while discharging his duties was required
to impart instructions relating to the rules and practices adopted for various
categories of sports. Besides that, the appellant was also required to impart
different skill sets and playing techniques depending on the nature of the
sport, for training the students. Merely because the appellant as a PTI/
     P.C. MODI v. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA                              967
       VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]

Sports Officer was not expected to conduct classes within the four walls
of the College, as in the case of a Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant
Professor, would not by itself make him ineligible for being treated as a
teacher for all practical purposes inasmuch as most sports require training
in open spaces/fields/courts etc.
      9. The reliance placed by the Division Bench of the High Court on the
decision of a three-Judges Bench in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai11, wherein though reference was
made to the decision of P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra), it was held that the
proposition laid down in the said case should not have been automatically
extended to other cases and the whole issue would depend on the nature of
Rules under which an employee is governed, is in our opinion, misplaced.
Laying emphasis on the aforesaid observations made in the last para of the
Ramesh Chandra Bajpai’s case (supra), the impugned judgment records
that the definition of a “teacher” under the M.P. Government Service Rules
cannot be imported into Statute 32 to give it a liberal interpretation so as to
include a Sports Officer as a teacher.
      10. The relevant provisions of the Act and the Statute governing the
instant case have been extracted above and juxtaposed with the provisions
of the A.P. Act and having gone through the relevant Regulations, there
is no manner of doubt that the definition of the word “teacher” under the
J.N.K.V.V. Act corresponds with the definition of “teacher” under the A.P.
Act, which was the subject matter of consideration in P.S. Ramamohana
Rao (supra). We are therefore of the opinion that the Division Bench of
the High Court had no reason to rely on the observations made in the case
of Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra) where the fact situation was entirely
different. In the said case, this Court was required to decide as to whether
the private respondent therein who was working as a Physical Training
Instructor in the Government Ayurvedic College, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh
could claim parity of pay with teachers who had been granted UGC scale
of pay. The view expressed was that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal
work” can only be invoked when employees are similarly situated and
there is wholesale identity between holders of the two posts. This Court
did not find any substance in the plea taken by the respondent therein that



11 (2009) 13 SCC 635
968            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 16 S.C.R.


the decision in the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra) would have any
application to the facts of the said case and observed that the said decision
had been misapplied and misconstrued by the High Court to give benefit
to the private respondent.
       11. In the case at hand, a comparison of the fact situation and the
provisions of the relevant Act and Regulations with those analysed in the case
of P.S. Ramamohana Rao (supra), would show clear parity. Just as under
the A.P. Act where the definition of a “teacher” contained in Section 2(n)
was an expansive one and extended not only to those persons who impart
instructions, conduct and carry on research work for extension programme,
but also those who were declared to be a teacher within the purview of the
definition under the Statute framed by the State Government, same is the
position under the J.N.K.V.V. Act, the Statute and relevant Regulations.
We are therefore of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court
fell into an error by placing reliance on the decision in Ramesh Chandra
Bajpai (supra), where the issue involved was at variance.
      12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is deemed appropriate to
quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14th December, 2009 and
restore the judgment dated 26th April, 2005 passed by the learned Single
Judge. It is declared that the appellant, who was discharging the duties of
a PTI/Sports Officer, would fall within the definition of a “teacher” and
would have been entitled to be continued in service till completion of 62
years of age. As the appellant was prematurely retired by the respondents
at the age of 60 years, it is held that he shall be entitled to all consequential
and monetary benefits including, arrear of salary, etc., had he continued in
service upto to the age of 62 years. The retiral benefits of the appellant shall
also be computed on a presumption that his age of retirement was 62 years.
The entire amount due and payable to the appellant shall be computed by the
respondents and paid over to him along with a copy of the said computation
within a period of six weeks from today.
     13. The appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no orders as to costs.

Headnotes prepared by:                                             Appeal allowed.
Ankit Gyan