/2022 INSC 0306/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2974 OF 2022
Dr. Jacob Thudipara             ..Appellant (S)
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.                ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   09.05.2017   passed   by   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Madhya   Pradesh,
Principal   Seat   at   Jabalpur   in   Writ   Appeal   No.   667/2016,
by   which   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said   appeal,
original writ petitioner – appellant herein has preferred the
present appeal. 
2. The appellant herein was serving as a teacher. The dispute
arose   with   respect   to   the   age   of
1

superannuation/retirement,   namely,   whether,   the
appellant­teacher   is   entitled   to   get   the   benefits   of
enhanced   age   of   superannuation   of   65   years   at   par   with
his   counterpart   teachers   serving   in   Government   Colleges
and Universities. 
2.1 The   appellant   was   serving   in   1OO%   government   aided
private   educational   institution.   At   the   relevant   time,   the
Full   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Madhya   Pradesh   in   the
case   of   Dr.   S.C.   Jain   Vs.   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh   and
others (W.A. No. 950/2015) took the view that the teachers
serving   in   the   aided   private   educational   institutions   are
not   entitled   to   get   the   benefit   of   enhanced   age   of
superannuation of 65 years. The appellant and others filed
Writ   Appeals   before   the   High   Court   which   came   to   be
dismissed,   relying   upon   the   case   of   Dr.   S.C.   Jain   (supra).
However,   subsequently   the   decision   of   the   Full   Bench   of
the   High   Court   in   the   case   of   Dr.   S.C.   Jain   (supra)   has
been   set   aside   by   this   Court   vide   judgment   and   order
dated   07.05.2019   in   C.A.   No.   4675­4676   of   2019   in   the
case   of   Dr.   R.S.   Sohane   Vs.   State   of   M.P.   &   others ;
2

(2019) 16 SCC 796, and it is held that the teachers like the
appellant are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of
superannuation   of   65   years.   The   parties   to   the   aforesaid
appeals   filed   M.A.   Nos.   1838­1839   of   2019   with   I.A.   No.
119950 of 2019 before this Court claiming the payment of
outstanding salaries for the intervening period. This Court
disposed   of   the   aforesaid   interlocutory   application   and
clarified   that   they   can   approach   the   High   Court   for
redressal of their grievances with regard to the payment of
outstanding   salaries   of   intervening   period.   As   observed
hereinabove,   the   appeal   preferred   by   the   appellant   before
the High Court has been dismissed by the Division Bench
of the High Court relying upon the decision of Full Court in
the case of Dr. S.C. Jain (supra), which has subsequently
been   set   aside   by   this   Court.   Therefore,   it   is   the   case   on
behalf of the appellant that he shall be entitled to continue
up   to   enhanced   age   of   superannuation   i.e.,   65   years   and
shall be entitled to all the monetary benefits as if, he would
have been continued up to the age of 65 years. 
3

2.2 Learned   counsel   appearing  on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has
heavily relied upon the subsequent decision of the Division
Bench of the High Court dated 29.11.2019 passed in Writ
Appeal No. 1857/2019 filed by a similarly situated teacher
of a government aided private college by which the Division
Bench of the High Court has condoned 1227 days of delay
in   filing   intra­court   appeal   and   has   held   him   entitled   for
superannuation   with   all   consequential   and   monetary
benefits including arrears of salaries and allowances of the
intervening   period,   by   following   the   law   laid   down   by   this
Court in the case of  Dr. R.S. Sohane  (supra). 
2.3 Learned   counsel   appearing  on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has
also   relied   upon   the   common   judgment   and   order   dated
07.09.2021   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   in   Writ   Appeal   No.   378/2018   and   other   allied
appeals,   by   which,   after   the   review   applications   were
allowed, the aforesaid writ appeals were restored to the file
and the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the
State to pay all the consequential and monetary benefits to
all similarly situated teachers and assistant professors for
4

the   intervening   period   between   62   years   and   65   years   of
age. It is submitted that all similarly situated teachers are
therefore, paid all consequential and monetary benefits for
the period between 62 years and 65 years of age, as if they
would have been continued up to 65 years of age. 
3. Mrs.   Mrinal   Gopal   Elker,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   respondent­   State,   as   such,   is   not   in   a
position to dispute the aforesaid factual aspects. However,
she   has   tried   to   distinguish   the   facts   by   submitting   that
when this Court passed an order earlier to pay the salaries
to them after they had completed the age of 62 years, all of
them   were   directed   to   be   taken   on   duty   by   way   of   an
interim order and actually they worked up to the age of 65
years. In the present case, the appellant did not work and
therefore   on   the   principle   of   ‘no   work   no   pay’,   he   is   not
entitled   to   any   monetary   benefits   for   the   intervening
period, between 62 years and 65 years of age.
4. Having   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective   parties   and   considering   the   various   orders
passed   by   the   High   Court,   by   which   in   similar   facts   and
5

situation   and   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.   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  (supra), 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
6

State   after   the   Special   Leave   Petition   against   the   said
judgment and order has been dismissed by this Court.  
5. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated
above,   the   present   appeal   succeeds.   The   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court   in   W.A.   No.   667/2016   is   hereby   quashed   and
set   aside,   which   was   passed   relying   upon   the   decision   of
Full Bench of High Court in W.A. No. 950/2015, which has
been   subsequently   set   aside   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Dr.   R.S.   Sohane   (supra).   It   is   held   that   the   appellant
herein   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. The arrears etc., shall be paid to
the   appellant   within   a   period   of   six   weeks’   from   today.
However, considering the fact that there was a huge delay
in preferring the appeal, which has been condoned by this
Court, the appellant shall not be entitled to any interest on
7

the arrears for the period between 09.05.2017 till the filing
of the present appeal. 
6. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.  In the facts and
circumstances   of   the   case,   there   shall   be   no   order   as   to
costs.
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
April 21, 2022.
8