In a significant legal ruling, the Court has provided clarification on the age of superannuation for teachers in private educational institutions, granting entitlement to enhanced retirement benefits. The decision addresses the issue of monetary benefits and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. Stay informed with this insightful analysis of the court’s legal stance on superannuation rights in the private education sector.
Facts
- The appellant’s interlocutory application was disposed of by the Court, allowing them to approach the High Court for redressal of outstanding salary grievances during the intervening period.
- The High Court had initially dismissed the appellant’s appeal based on a Full Court decision in the case of Dr. S.C. Jain, which was later overturned by this Court.
- Subsequently, this Court also set aside the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in the case of Dr. S.C. Jain on 07.05.2019.
- The appellant, a teacher, is entitled to the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.
- Dispute regarding the age of superannuation/retirement of the appellant-teacher, claiming entitlement to enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years at par with teachers in Government Colleges and Universities.
- Appellant was serving in a 100% government-aided private educational institution.
- Parties filed M.A. Nos. 1838-1839 of 2019 with I.A. No. 119950 of 2019 seeking payment of outstanding salaries for the intervening period.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Arguments
- The appellant is entitled to continue up to the enhanced age of superannuation, which is 65 years, and receive all monetary benefits as if he had been continued up to the age of 65 years.
- The Division Bench of the High Court, in a common judgment, ordered the State to pay all consequential and monetary benefits to all similarly situated teachers and assistant professors for the period between 62 years and 65 years of age.
- A subsequent decision by the Division Bench of the High Court in another case allowed a teacher of a government-aided private college to be entitled to superannuation with all consequential and monetary benefits, including arrears of salaries and allowances, following the principles laid down by the Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane.
- The respondent’s counsel, Mrs. Mrinal Gopal Elker, agreed to the factual aspects presented.
- She argued that the difference in the case was that the previous order mandated the appellants to work beyond 62 years, which they did up to 65 years.
- The appellant did not work in this case, thus the ‘no work no pay’ principle applies.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh initially held that teachers in aided private educational institutions are not entitled to enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.
- The appellant filed Writ Appeals against this decision which were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
- The Division Bench’s decision in W.A. No 667/2016 was quashed and set aside by the Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane.
- The appellant is declared entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.
- He is entitled to receive all consequential and monetary benefits including arrears up to the age of 65 years.
- Arrears must be paid to the appellant within six weeks from the judgment.
- Due to the delay in filing the appeal, the appellant will not receive any interest on arrears between 09.05.2017 and the filing date of the appeal.
- The appellant, a teacher, cannot be singled out as similarly situated teachers have been granted monetary benefits.
- The State’s argument of ‘no work no pay’ has been rejected by the High Court in similar cases.
- The appellant is entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits for the period between 62 years and 65 years as if he had retired at 65 years.
- The High Court rejected the plea and defense that teachers were prevented from serving up to the age of 65 years.
- Teachers were entitled to serve up to 65 years as per the ruling in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane.
- Monetary benefits for the period of preventment from serving up to 65 years cannot be denied to the teachers.
- The Division Bench of the High Court passed judgment and order implemented by the State after the Special Leave Petition against it was dismissed by this Court.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed.
- This decision overrules the previous ruling.
Case Title: JACOB THUDIPARA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2022 INSC 461)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002974-002974 / 2022
