Teachers In Govt. Aided Pvt. Educational Institutions To Get Benefits Of Superannuation Up To 65 Years – SC Reaffirms

Mrs. Mrinal Gopal Elker appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

The Appellant was serving as a teacher in a 100% government-aided private educational institution. The dispute arose regarding whether the Appellant was 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.

The Appellant's appeal before the High Court was dismissed, as the Court placed reliance on the case of Dr S.C. Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., where the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 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.

However, subsequently, the judgment in the case of Dr S.C. Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. was set aside by the Supreme Court, in the case of Dr R.S. Sohane vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., as it was held that teachers like the Appellant are entitled to get the benefits of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.

The Appellant approached the Supreme Court claiming payment of outstanding salaries for the intervening period. The Court disposed of the application and clarified that the Appellant can approach the High Court for redressal of their grievances. The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, and the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court.

The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant heavily relied on a subsequent decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, where the Bench had held a similarly situated teacher entitled for superannuation with all consequential has held him entitled for and monetary benefits including arrears of salaries and allowances of the intervening period, by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr R.S. Sohane vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The Counsel also relied upon another judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court where the Court that directed the State to pay all the consequential and monetary benefits to all similarly situated teachers and assistant professors for the intervening period between 62 years and 65 years of age.

The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that when the Supreme Court passed the order to pay the salaries to the teachers after they had completed the age of 62 years, an interim order was passed for the teachers to be taken on duty and those teachers worked up to the age of 65. Distinguishing the facts, the Counsel contended 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.

The Supreme Court opined 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.", thereby allowing the appeal.