ON April 21, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, in Dr. Jacob Thudipara vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., held that teachers working in 100 per cent government-aided private educational institutions, if forcibly retired at the age of 62, would be eligible for the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years. The principle of 'no work, no pay' would not be applicable to them, the bench clarified, in response to the state government's contention that such teachers are not eligible for the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation, as they did not work between 62 and 65 years of age..According to the bench, such teachers would be considered at par with their counterpart teachers, serving in government colleges and universities, who are entitled to get the benefits enhanced for the period between 62 and 65 years of age, as if they would have continued up to the 65 years of age. The principle of 'no work no pay' is not a defence to be applied in such cases, since they were prevented from serving up to the age of 65 years, the bench made it clear.. The present decision overturned the judgment of the division bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated May 9, 2017..The appellant-teacher was serving in a fully government-aided private educational institution when he was deprived of the monetary benefits of superannuation based on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision of the full bench in Dr. S.C. Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2005). In this case, the high court had taken the view that teachers serving at aided private educational institutions are not entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years. However, subsequently, the judgment in S.C Jain was overruled by the Supreme Court in Dr. R.S. Sohane vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (2019). The Supreme Court had held in this case that teachers like the appellant were entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years..Based on the Supreme Court's judgment in R.S Sohane, subsequent writ appeals filed by similarly situated teachers of a government-aided private college were allowed by the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the court held them to be entitled for superannuation with all consequential and monetary benefits, including arrears of salaries and allowance during the intervening period of 62 years to 65 years of age..The Supreme Court in the present case observed that the appellant being a similarly situated teacher cannot be singled out and said, "…not accepting the 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, 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. ".Click here to view the Supreme Court's judgment.
ON April 21, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, in Dr. Jacob Thudipara vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., held that teachers working in 100 per cent government-aided private educational institutions, if forcibly retired at the age of 62, would be eligible for the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years. The principle of 'no work, no pay' would not be applicable to them, the bench clarified, in response to the state government's contention that such teachers are not eligible for the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation, as they did not work between 62 and 65 years of age..According to the bench, such teachers would be considered at par with their counterpart teachers, serving in government colleges and universities, who are entitled to get the benefits enhanced for the period between 62 and 65 years of age, as if they would have continued up to the 65 years of age. The principle of 'no work no pay' is not a defence to be applied in such cases, since they were prevented from serving up to the age of 65 years, the bench made it clear.. The present decision overturned the judgment of the division bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated May 9, 2017..The appellant-teacher was serving in a fully government-aided private educational institution when he was deprived of the monetary benefits of superannuation based on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision of the full bench in Dr. S.C. Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2005). In this case, the high court had taken the view that teachers serving at aided private educational institutions are not entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years. However, subsequently, the judgment in S.C Jain was overruled by the Supreme Court in Dr. R.S. Sohane vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (2019). The Supreme Court had held in this case that teachers like the appellant were entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years..Based on the Supreme Court's judgment in R.S Sohane, subsequent writ appeals filed by similarly situated teachers of a government-aided private college were allowed by the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the court held them to be entitled for superannuation with all consequential and monetary benefits, including arrears of salaries and allowance during the intervening period of 62 years to 65 years of age..The Supreme Court in the present case observed that the appellant being a similarly situated teacher cannot be singled out and said, "…not accepting the 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, 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. ".Click here to view the Supreme Court's judgment.
