DR. JACOB THUDIPARA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 21-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 68
68
DR. JACOB THUDIPARA
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.2974 of 2022)
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
– 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
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
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
69
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,
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
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, 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 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
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.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 16 SCC 796
relied on
Para 2.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2974
of 2022.
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.
DR. JACOB THUDIPARA v.THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
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
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,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.