/2022 INSC 0280/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).           OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.10473 of 2018)
HARISH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA          ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS           ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).           OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.11057 of 2018)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1.  Leave granted.
2. Since   common   question   has   been   raised   in   both   the   appeals,
however, decided by the separate impugned judgments by the High
1

Court   of   Judicature   at   Patna   on   18 th
  September,   2017   and   30 th
October,   2017   respectively,   with   the   consent   of   parties,   both   the
appeals are disposed of by the present judgment.
3. In   the   present   batch   of   appeals,   all   the   five   appellants   have
approached   this   Court   with   the   self­same   grievance   that   they   were
holders   of   degree   in   Ayurveda   and   were   appointed   as   Lecturers   in
between the period from 14 th
  March, 1978 to 10 th
  May, 1979 in the
respective   private   Ayurvedic   Colleges   and   by   passage   of   time,   they
were   promoted   as   Reader/Professor.   Admittedly,   their   appointment
as a Lecturer was much prior to 25 th
 March, 1984.
4. The   State   of   Bihar   in   exercise   of   its   legislative   power   enacted
the   Act   called   “The   Bihar   Private   Medical   (Indian   System   of
Medicine) College (Taking over) Act, 1985” (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act 1985”) for taking  over of Private Medical (Indian System of
Medicine)   Colleges   of   the   State   of   Bihar,   which   received   assent   on
07 th
  August,   1985   and   published   in   Bihar   Gazette,   Extraordinary
No.687, dated 04 th
 December, 1985.
5. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3
of   the   Act   1985   took   over   the   management   of   Sri   Dhanwantri
2

Ayurved   College,   Buxar   Post   Ahirauli,   District   Bhojpur   and   the
hospitals attached to it w.e.f. 01 st
  June, 1986 on certain terms and
conditions in terms of the notification dated 09 th
 December, 1986.  
6. The   State   Government   thereafter   constituted   a   Screening
Committee   vide   its   notification   dated   09 th
  October,   1990   to   submit
its   report   to   the   State   Government.   The   Screening   Committee
constituted,   after   scrutiny   of   records   of   the   individual   teachers
submitted   its   report,   which   was   published   in   the   Bihar   Gazette   on
15 th
  January,   1992   and   in   terms   of   the   recommendation   made   by
the   Screening   Committee,   the  State  Government   took   a   decision   to
absorb   the   services   of   103   teaching   and   non­teaching   employees,
including   the   present   appellants   vide   order   dated   24 th
  November,
1992. 
7. It   reveals   from   the   record   that   the   teaching/non­teaching
employees who were dissatisfied with the recommendation made by
the   Screening   Committee   report   dated   15 th
  January,   1992
challenged   the   recommendation   by   filing   of   various   writ   petitions
before   the   High   Court   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   and
while   deciding   the   batch   of   writ   petitions,   the   High   Court   directed
3

that   a   fresh   Screening   Committee   be   constituted   by   the   State
Government   consisting   of   Secretary   cum   Health   Commissioner,
Department   of   Health   and   one   more   IAS   officer   holding   a
responsible   post   under   different   department   of   State   Government
and   also   any   member   of   Central   Council   of   Indigenous   Medicine
(CCIM) and this Committee was directed to examine the cases of the
employees of the college as on the cut­off date, i.e. 01 st
  June, 1986
and to submit a report to the State Government. 
8. Although   at   one   stage,   the   grievance   was   raised   by   the   other
set   of   employees   who   were   aggrieved   by   the   directions   of   the   High
Court   in   constituting   a   fresh   Screening   Committee   but   finally   the
second   Screening   Committee   constituted   by   the   Government
pursuant   to   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated   12 th
  May,   1995
submitted   its   report   dated   18 th
  June,   1999   and   in   terms   of   the
recommendation   of   the   second   Screening   Committee   report   dated
18 th
  June,   1999,   the   State   Government   accepted   the
recommendations   and   absorbed   23   teaching   employees   out   of   84
and   no   non­teaching   employee   out   of   167   was   considered   fit   for
absorption.
4

9. The State Government, in consequence thereof, issued order of
termination   in   terms   of   the   recommendations   made   by   the   second
Screening Committee by order dated 29 th
 August, 2003 containing a
list of 229 persons including  the present appellants whose services
were not found fit for absorption and accordingly their services were
terminated. 
10. The recommendation of the second Screening Committee dated
18 th
  June,   1999,   followed   with   the   order   of   termination   passed   by
the   State  Government  dated  29 th
  August, 2003  became the  subject
matter   of   challenge   by   filing   writ   petitions   before   the   High   Court
under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   and   after   the   Division   Bench
decided the batch of LPAs by judgment dated 01 st
  November, 2006,
a fresh Review Screening Committee was constituted to examine the
qualifications of the teaching/non­teaching employees. 
11. The   Review   Screening   Committee   in   its   report   recommended
for   absorption   of   24   teaching   employees   and   42   non­teaching
employees   and   rest   of   99   found   to   be   unfit   for   absorption   and   the
appellants   unfortunately   fall   in   the   category   of   teachers   who   were
found   unfit   for   absorption   amongst   99   persons   and   that   again
5

became   the   subject   matter   of   grievance   before   the   High   Court   by
filing   of   writ   petitions   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   and   in
the third round of litigation, they were finally non­suited under the
impugned   judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   on   the   premise   that   in
terms   of   the   qualifications   prescribed   by   Central   Council   of   Indian
Indigenous   Act,   1970   (hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   the   “CCIM
Act,   1970”)   for   teaching   staff   in   Ayurvedic   degree   Colleges   apart
from   academic   qualification,   one   is   supposed   to   hold   post
qualification teaching experience in any institution of three years for
the   post   of   Lecturer   and   that   being   also   the   requirement   under
Chapter   XVI­B   of   the   Statutes   of   Bihar   University   regarding
minimum   qualification   of   teacher   and   officer   in   the   faculty   of
Ayurveda for the post of Lecturer, one is supposed to have a degree
of   Ayurveda   from   University   established   by   law   with   at   least   three
years   of   post   qualification   teaching   experience   from   a   recognised
Ayurvedic   College   and   since   none   of   the   appellants   were   holding
three   years   of   post   qualification   teaching   experience   on   the   date
they   were   initially   appointed   as   a   teacher/lecturer   in   private
Ayurvedic   College   in   the   year   1978­1979,   were   ineligible   for
6

absorption   in   terms   of   notification   dated   09 th
  December,   1986   and
that   became   the   subject   matter   of   challenge   at   the   instance   of   the
appellants by filing of appeals in this Court. 
12. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   at   length
and perused the material on record with their assistance. 
13. Before   we   proceed   to   examine   the   grievance   made   by   the
appellants,   it   will   be   apposite   to   take   note   of   the   scheme   of   the
Statute   of   the   Bihar   University   and   provisions   relevant   for   the
purpose.
14. Chapter   XVI­B   of   the   Statutes   of   the   Bihar   University   which
prescribes the essential qualifications for appointment of teachers in
faculty  of   Ayurveda  and  for  the   post   of  Lecturer   in  particular,  with
which we are concerned, is reproduced hereunder:­
“1.   The   following   shall   be   grades,   pay   scales   and   minimum
qualifications of teachers and officers in the faculty of Ayurveda:­
  ……..
(d) Lecturer 
Pay Scale­ 610­20­670­30­940­EB­35­1155. 
Qualifications:­   Degree   in   Ayurveda   from   a   University   or   a
Board/  Council  Established   by   a   State   or   Central  Government
and   recognized   by   the   University   with   at   least   3   years   of
teaching   experience   in   a   recognized   Ayurvedic   College,   or   with
7

at least 3 years experience as a Medical Officer in Government/
University Dispensary.
  Provided   further   that   a   holder   of   M.B.B.S.   degree   University
from   any   recognized   shall   also   be   eligible   for   appointment   in
Anatomy   Physiology   and   Bio­Chemistry,   Pathology,
Jurisprudence, Health and Hygiene and holder of M.Sc. degree
will be eligible for Basic Science in the subject concerned.”
15. It may be relevant to note that CCIM Act, 1970 also laid down
the   self­same   teaching   qualification   for   teaching   staff   in   Ayurvedic
degree colleges. The relevant clause of the CCIM Act, 1970 reads as
follows:­
"13. Qualifications prescribed for Teaching Staff Essential: 
(a) Degree (diploma in Ayurved from a University established
by law or a statutory Board/ Faculty/ Examining Body of
Indian Medicine or equivalent 
OR
Ayurvedacharya of All India Ayurved Vidyapeeth. 
OR
Other   eminent   Ayurvedic   Scholars   of   established   repute
though   not   having   any   degree/   diploma,   but   fit   for   teaching
Ayurvedic subjects. 
(b) Teaching   experience   in  any   institution   for   ten  years,  five
years   and   three   years   for   the   post   of   Professor,   Reader   and
Lecturer respectively. 
(c) Knowledge of Sanskrit. 
Desirable: 
(a) Post/graduate   qualification   in   Ayurved   from   a   recognized
institution/ university established by law. 
(b) Original published papers/ books as the subject."
8

16. Section   3   of   the   Act,   1985   postulates   that   the   State
Government, by a notification and from the date mentioned therein,
is competent to take over the college and management of the private
Ayurvedic College.   However, in terms of Section 6 of the Act 1985,
the   State   Government   is   vested   with   the   power   to   lay   down   the
terms   and   conditions   of   the   teaching   staff   and   other   employees   of
the college.  Section 3 and Section 6 of the Act 1985 relevant for the
purpose are reproduced hereunder:­
“3.   Taking   over   of   Private   Medical   (Indian   System   of   Medicine)
Colleges.­
(1) The State Government may, by a notified order and from the date
mentioned therein, take over a College and the management and
control   thereof   shall   thereupon   be   exercised   by   the   State
Government in such manner as specified in the said order.
(2) All   the   assets   and   properties   of   the   college   and   the   college   body
whether   movable   or   immovable   including   land,   building,   library,
laboratory   and   dispensary   workshop,   store,   instruments,
machinery,   vehicles,   cash   balance,   reserve   fund,   investments,
taxes,   furniture   and   others   shall,   on   the   date   of   take   over   stand
transferred   to   and   vested   in,   and   be   deemed   to   have   come   into
possession of the State Government.
(3) All   the   liabilities   and   obligations   of   the   College   under   any
agreement   or   contract   entered   into   bona   fide   before   the   date   of
taking over shall devolve and shall be deemed to have devolved on
the State Government.
6.   Determination   of   terms   of   the   teaching   staff   and   other
employees of the College.   – (1) From the date of the notified order, all
9

the staff employed in the College shall cease to be the employees of the
College body :
Provided   that   they   shall   continue   to   serve   the   College   on   ad   hoc   basis
till a decision under sub­sections (3) and (4) of this Section is taken by
the state Government.
(2) The State Government will set up one or more committees of experts
and   knowledgeable   persons   which   will   examine   the   bio­data   of   each
member   of   the   teaching   staff   and   ascertain   whether   appointment,
promotion or confirmation was made in accordance with the Act, Statue
or   Regulations   of   the   University   concerned   and   in   keeping   with   the
guidelines   laid   down   by   the   Indian   Medical   Council   of   India   and   take
into   consideration   all   other   relevant   materials   including   length   of   his
service in the College; and submit its report to the State Government.
(3)   The   State   Government   on   receipt   of   the   report   of   the   Committee   or
committees, as the case may be, will decide in respect of each member
of   teaching   staff   on   the   merits   of   each   case   whether   to   absorb   him   in
government   service   or   to   terminate   his   service   or   to   allow   him   to
continue   on   an   ad   hoc   basis   for   a   fixed   term   on   contract   and   shall,
where   necessary,   redetermine   the   rank,   pay   allowances   and   other
conditions of service.
(4)   The   State   Government   shall   similarly   determine   the   terms   of
appointment  and  other   conditions of  service of other  categories  of staff
of the college on the basis of facts ascertained either by a committee or
by an officer entrusted with the task and the provisions of sub­sections
(2) and (3) of this Section shall apply  mutatis mutandis  to such cases.”
17. The   Government   later   issued   a   Notification   dated   09 th
December, 1986 of taking over of private medical colleges issued
in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act 1985, the extract
of which relevant for the purpose is reproduced hereunder:­
“BIHAR GAZETTE, 24 DECEMBER 1986
Medical Education and Family Welfare Department
NOTIFICATION
09/12/1986
10

No.  Indem  (H)M­2­186/84­940(DM)­M.  E. ­ under   Section 3  of Bihar
Private   (India   System   of   Medicine)   College   (taking   over)   Act   1985
(Bihar   Act,   10,   1985)   and   the   powers   provided   therein   the   Bihar
Government  takes over Sri Dhanwantri Ayurved College, Buxar, Post
Ahirauli District  Bhojpur  and  the  Hospitals attached to  it  with effect
from 01/06/1986 with the following terms and conditions:­
(a)   As   a   result   of   Nationalization   (Sarkarikaran),   all   the   movable
and Immovable properties of the institution will vest in the State
Government from the date of Nationalization. The verification of
the   certified   list   of   the   entire   assets   and   liabilities   of   the   said
college   would   be   done   by   the   Department   and   from   the   date   of
the nationalization (take over). No responsibility of any liabilities
would   be   on   the   Government   except   the   salary   of   the   teaching
and non teaching employees of the said college.
(b) That no dues of any kind is owed by the said college as per the
no dues certificate produced by the governing body of the college
to   the   Department   nor   there   is   any   dues   on   its   land   and   the
entire land of the college is in its peaceful possession. 
(c)   That   the   verification   of   the   list   of   Teaching   and   Non   Teaching
employees   working   in   the   said   college   on   the   cut   off   date   of
01/03/1983   would   be   done   by   a   Screening   Committee   duly
constituted   by   the   Department   and   it   would   be   seen   that
whether   on   the   said   date   the   employees   and   teachers   were
having minimum qualification and teaching  skill or not for  the
post which they held on the said date. 
(d)   As   per   the   Norms   of   Indian   Medical   Council   the
sanction/creation   of   approved   posts   of   Gazetted   and   non
gazetted   would   be   done   as   per   the   approved   pay   by   the   State
Government   along   with   all   the   allowances   and   till   then   the
employees   working   in   the   said   institution   would   get   their
present pay. 
By the order of the Governor
 Banshidhar Singh, Deputy Secretary”
18. It may be relevant to note that the cut­off date which has been
referred   to   as   01 st
  March,   1983   in   the   aforementioned   notification
11

dated 09 th
 December, 1986 got replaced to 01 st
 June, 1986 in terms
of  the   judgment  of  the  High  Court  dated  12 th
  July,  1988  passed  in
C.W.J.C. No.992/1987.
19. It  is   not   disputed   that   each   of  the   appellants  was   holding   the
essential academic qualifications prescribed for teaching staff as on
the   date   of   their   initial   appointment   in   the   year   1978­1979   in   the
private Ayurvedic College and were serving the institution when the
Act, 1985 came into force on 07 th
 August, 1985. 
20. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3
of the Act 1985 vide its notification dated 09 th
 December, 1986 w.e.f.
01 st
 June, 1986 took over the college and management of the private
Ayurvedic College on certain terms and conditions and Clause (c) of
the notification of 09 th
 December, 1986 of which reference has been
made   above   clearly   manifest   that   the   verification   of   the   list   of
teaching and non­teaching employees working in the said college on
the   cut­off   date   i.e.   01 st
  June,   1986   would   be   considered   by   the
Screening Committee duly constituted by the department and it will
be seen by the Committee whether on the said date, the employees
and   teachers   were   having   minimum   qualifications   and   teaching
12

skills for the post that they held on the cut­off date and not on the
date of appointment.  
21. Clause (c) of the notification dated 09 th
 December, 1986 leaves
no   manner   of   doubt   that   the   Screening   Committee   constituted   by
the   State   Government   has   to   look   into   the   eligibility   and   other
minimum  qualifications  and teaching  skills as on  the said date i.e.
01 st
  June,   1986.   At   this   stage,   we   would   like   to   take   note   of   the
submission  made  by   learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  State  that
the notification dated 09 th
 December, 1986 has to be read alongwith
Section 6(2) of the Act which casts an obligation on the Committee
of   experts   to   examine   the   bio­data   of   each   of   the   members   of   the
teaching staff and to ascertain whether appointment, promotion and
confirmation   was   made   in   accordance   with   the   Act,   Statute   or
Regulations   of   the   University   concerned   keeping   in   view   the
guidelines   of   statutory   authority   and   the   recommendation   made
under sub­Section (2) of Section 6 was to be considered by the State
Government   for   taking   a   final   decision   under   sub­Section   (3)   of
Section 6 of the Act 1985. 
13

22. We   find   a   complete   fallacy   in   the   submission   made   by   the
State   Counsel   for   the   reason   that   Section   6(2)   authored   the
Committee constituted by the State Government to examine the bio­
data   of   each   of   the   member   of   the   teaching   staff   in   reference   to
appointment, promotion and confirmation made in accordance with
the   relevant   Statute   and  the   State   Government   in  terms   of   Section
6(3) of the Act will take a call in respect of each member of teaching
staff   on   merits   of   each   case   whether   to   absorb   him   in   the
Government   service   or   terminate   his   service   or   allow   him   to
continue  on   ad  hoc   basis on  a  fixed term, as  the case may  be, but
once   a   State   Government   in   its   wisdom   has   come   out   with   the
statutory notification issued in exercise of power under Section 3 of
the   Act   dated   09 th
  December,   1986   while   taking   assets   of   private
Ayurvedic   College   and   the   hospitals   attached   thereto,   at   the   same
time, under Clause (c), a specific mandate has been authored to the
Screening   Committee   to   consider   the   minimum   qualifications   and
teaching   skills  of  the  teachers  as  on  the  cut­off  date i.e.  01 st
  June,
1986   and   on   the   conjoint   reading   of   Section   6(2)   of   the   Act   1985
14

read   with   notification   dated   09 th
  December,   1986,   the   State
Government made its intention clear  that as the decision has been
taken   to   absorb   the   employee/teacher   of   the   private   Ayurvedic
college   as   on   01 st
  June,   1986,   his   bio­data   is   to   be   examined   for
various   purposes,   but   while   considering   him   for   absorption,   the
Screening   Committee   constituted   has   to   consider   the   eligibility   of
the   employees/teachers   regarding   minimum   qualifications   and
teaching   skills   as   on   the   cut­off   date   i.e.   01 st
  June,   1986   and   the
recommendation   made   by   the   Screening   Committee   will   be
considered   by   the   State   Government   for   absorption   or   for
continuance   in   service   or   for   termination,   as   the   case   may   be,   on
case to case basis in terms of sub­Section (3) of Section 6 of the Act
1985.
23. The   additional   reason   appears   to   be   since   the   service   of   the
teacher   will   be   reckoned   from   the   date   of   absorption   in   the
Government,   the   past   service   rendered   in   the   private   Ayurvedic
college in terms of the affidavit filed by the State Government stands
obliterated   for   all   practical   purposes.     This   further   supports   the
15

eligibility of the teacher to be looked into as on the cut­off date, i.e.
01 st
 June, 1986.
24. Thus, the very premise on which the High Court has proceeded
to examine the eligibility of the teachers as on the date they initially
entered   into   service   in   the   year   1978­1979   and   arriving   to   the
conclusion   that   the   teachers   who   were   not   holding   the   post­
qualification   teaching   experience   of   three   years   from   recognized
Ayurvedic   college   as   referred   to   under   the   Statute   would   not   be
eligible   for   absorption   in   terms   of   the   notification   dated   09 th
December, 1986, in our considered view, is a clear misconception of
law and deserves rejection. 
25. We proceed to further  examine as to whether the requirement
of   eligibility   of   the   teaching   staff   of   holding   post   qualification
teaching  experience of three years as a teacher/lecturer  referred to
under   the   Statute   is   possible   for   the   incumbent   to   meet   out   on
which   the   State   counsel   has   put   much   emphasis.   Our   question   to
him was how far it is practically possible that when you don’t permit
a person to be recruited into service as a teacher on the basis of his
academic qualification,  how  he  will  gain  post­qualification   teaching
16

experience of three years as the condition of eligibility and how both
these twin conditions would meet together.
26. Leaned   counsel   for   the   respondents   even   after   seeking
instructions   from   the   department   has   come   with   the   explanation
that   this   being   the   statutory   requirement,   one   is   supposed   to
comply with at the time of initial appointment but he was unable to
justify as to how the person on the basis of academic qualification, if
not   being   permitted   to   teach,   may   acquire   post   qualification
teaching   experience   as   referred   to   under   the   Statute   of   the   Bihar
University   Act   or   by   CCIM   Act,   1970   for   entry   into   service   and,   in
our   considered   view,   the   academic   qualification   and   post
qualification   teaching   experience   of   three   years   at   the   entry   level
post   i.e.   Lecturer   in   the   instant   case,   are   two   different   ends   which
are not possible to meet. 
27. We are not going into this controversy any more and leave it at
this   stage   for   the   reason   that   the   requirement   in   terms   of   the
notification dated 09 th
 December, 1986 was never the subject matter
of challenge and clause (c), in particular, clearly manifests that the
verification   of   the   list  of  eligible  teaching   employees   working   in   the
17

college   would   be   considered   by   the   Screening   Committee   duly
constituted by the department as on the cut­off date i.e. 01 st
  June,
1986   and   it   is   the   said   date   on   which   the   minimum   qualification
and   teaching   skills   of   the   individual   has   to   be   looked   into   by   the
Committee while adjudging his overall suitability for absorption. 
28. Indisputedly, in the instant case, each of the appellants before
this Court was holding the academic qualification while entered into
service in  the  year  1978­1979 in  the  private  Ayurvedic  College and
holding teaching experience of more than three years as on the cut­
off date 01 st
 June, 1986 in terms of notification dated 09 th
 December
1986,   when   the   Screening   Committee   was   called   upon   to   adjudge
the overall suitability  of the appellants for  absorption and once the
appellants were indeed eligible as on the cut­off date i.e. 01 st
  June,
1986,   the   justification   tendered   by   the   Committee,   in   the   first
instance, that the appellants were not holding the post qualification
teaching   experience   of   three   years   on   the   date   when   they   were
initially appointed in the private Ayurvedic College in the year 1978­
1979,   is   not   in   conformity   with   the   mandate   of   the   Act   1985   read
with notification dated 09 th
 December, 1986.
18

 29. In   our   considered   view,   the   High   Court   under   the   impugned
judgment   has   completely   overlooked   the   scheme   of   the   Act   1985
read with notification dated 09 th
 December, 1986 pursuant to which
the   exercise   was   to   be   undertaken   by   the   State   Government   for
absorbing   teaching/non­teaching   employees   of   private   Ayurvedic
College   and   this   was   the   apparent   error   committed   by   the   High
Court which, in our view, is not sustainable in law and deserves to
be set aside.
30. Before   parting   with   the   order,   it   has   been   informed   to   this
Court   that   in   terms  of  the  Government   notification   no.   6745  dated
30 th
  July   2015,   the   age   of   superannuation   of   teachers   has   been
extended   upto   67   years   and   out   of   5   teachers,   4   of   them   had
attained   the   age   of   superannuation   and   one   Dr.   Mod   Nath   Mishra
has   time   to   serve   the   institution   and   may   retire   in   the   month   of
March, 2023.
31. Once we arrive at the conclusion  that the  finding  of  unfitness
recorded by the Review Screening Committee was not sustainable in
law which was the foundation for the Government to terminate the
19

services of the appellants in consequence thereof, each one of them
deserves to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
32. So far as Dr. Mod Nath Mishra is concerned, since he has not
attained   the   age   of   superannuation,   we   direct   the   respondents   to
pass necessary order regarding his reinstatement within a period of
one   month   and   he   shall   be   entitled   for   all   notional   benefits
including   pay,   seniority   and   other   consequential   benefits   to   which
he is entitled for under the rules but shall not be entitled for salary
during the period he has not served the institution. 
33. The   other   four   appellants   who   have   attained   the   age   of
superannuation   shall   be   treated   to   be   in   continuous   service   and
their service shall be treated as a qualifying service for all practical
purposes,   including   for   pension   and   other   retiral   benefits,   which
each   of   the   appellants   is   legitimately   entitled   for   under   the   rules.
However,  we make  it  clear  that   the  appellants  shall  not  be  entitled
for   salary   for   the   intervening   period   during   which   they   have   not
served the institution. 
34. These   appeals   succeed   and   are   accordingly   allowed   and   the
impugned judgments of the High Court dated 18 th
  September, 2017
20

and   30 th
  October,   2017   respectively   are   hereby   quashed   and   set
aside in the observations made above.
35. We   direct   the   respondents   to   pass   necessary   order   regarding
release   of   their   pension   and   other   retiral   dues   to   which   the
individual   appellant/teacher   is   entitled   for   within   one   month   and
arrears   of   retiral   dues   shall   be   paid   to   each   of   them   within   three
months after due computation, failing which it shall carry interest @
12% per annum until actual payment. No costs.
36. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
…………………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
APRIL 13, 2022.
21