Teachers In Govt Aided Private Educational Institutions In MP Entitled To Superannuation Age Of 65 Years : Supreme Court Reiterates

The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna rendered the observation while considering SLP assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated May 9, 2017 by which the High Court had dismissed the appellant's appeal and observed that teachers serving in the aided private educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.

Factual Background

In the present matter, the appellant was serving as a teacher in 1OO% government aided private educational institutions. The dispute arose with respect to the age of superannuation/retirement as to whether, the appellant-teacher was 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.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court but since the full bench of the High Court in 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's appeal was dismissed.

However, the Supreme Court set aside the view taken by the High Court in Dr SC Jain  and held that private school teachers are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years in the case Dr RS Sohane vs State of MP (2019) 16 SCC 796.  The Court also allowed the parties in the RS Sohane case to approach the High Court for claiming outstanding salaries.

Since the appellant's plea was dismissed by the High Court relying on Dr SC Jain, he approached the Top Court contending that he was entitled to continue up to enhanced age of superannuation i.e., 65 years and would be entitled to all the monetary benefits as if he would have continued up to the age of 65 years.

Submission Of Counsels

The appellant's counsel submitted that all similarly situated teachers were, 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.

Advocate Mrinal Gopal Elker, appearing for the State 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. She further contended that the appellant did not work and therefore on the principle of 'no work no pay', he was not entitled to any monetary benefits for the intervening period, between 62 years and 65 years of age.

Supreme Court's Analysis

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the bench in the judgement authored by Justice MR Shah said,

"..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 a 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 defense 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"

While allowing the appeal, the bench said,

"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."

Case Title: Dr. Jacob Thudipara v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2974 Of 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Madhya Pradesh - Teachers in govt aided private educational institutions entitled to supernnuation age of 65 years- followed Dr RS Sohane vs State of MP (2019) 16 SCC 796

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment