P.C. MODI versus THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 13-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 955 : 2023 INSC 1067
955
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 Oﬃ  cer falls within 
the expression “teacher”.
(ii) Whether the appellant (working as a sports oﬃ  cer/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 oﬃ  cer/PTI in the College of 
Agriculture under the respondent No.1-University – Appellant’s case 
that since sports oﬃ  cer/PTI working in the respondent No.1-University 
fall under the deﬁ nition 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 ﬁ led by the appellant – It was held that the appellant would fall 
within the deﬁ nition 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 
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 deﬁ nition 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 deﬁ nition 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 Oﬃ  cer, would 
fall within the deﬁ nition 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 beneﬁ ts 
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. 
957
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The present appeal has been ﬁ led 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 ﬁ led by the respondents herein allowing their appeal and 
setting aside the order dated 26th April, 2005, passed by the learned Single 
Ju dge2 wherein it was held that the appellant, who was working as a sports 
oﬃ  cer/physical training instructor3 in the respondent No. 1 – Jawaharlal 
Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya4, falls under the deﬁ nition 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 ﬁ rst elucidate the facts relevant for deciding the case at hand.
2.1 The respondent No. 1 –
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.