Supreme Court reiterates that teachers in government aided private educational institution in MP entitled to superannuation age of 65 years

The Supreme Court in the case Dr. Jacob Thudipara v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Or’s observed that the teachers of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years are entitled to get the benefit the court stated to reiterated that teachers in government aided private educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh.

The order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A. No. 667/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside, a decision was passed by relying upon the full bench of High Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane (supra) of which the order has been set aside. The bench stated in the above-mentioned case shall be entitled to all the consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salaries and etc., as if, the applicant 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. Therefore, it was held by the court that the appellant herein is entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation i.e., 65 years.

the bench comprising of Justice MR Shah stated after considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties.

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. it was submitted by the State that on the principle of ‘no work no pay’ such teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits, 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. Furthermore, Justice MR Shah stated that he is of the opinion that the 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.

Appearing for the State, the counsel 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. 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 i.e., Advocate Mrinal Gopal Elker, appearing for the state further 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.

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

The bench comprising of justice MR Shah and the justice BV Nagarathnain an order dated May 9, 2017 by which the High Court rendered the observation while considering SLP assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court’s. the appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the High Court. 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 was observed by the bench.