Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Dr. Jacob Thudipara (S) v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (S).

Supreme Court Of India

Apr 21, 2022

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Dr. Jacob Thudipara, was a teacher in a 100% government-aided private educational institution in Madhya Pradesh. A dispute arose regarding his superannuation age—specifically, whether he was entitled to retire at 65 years like teachers in Government colleges and universities, or at 62 years as then fixed for aided-institution staff.

Relying on a Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. S.C. Jain v. State of M.P. (W.A. No. 950/2015), the High Court dismissed the appellant’s Writ Appeal No. 667/2016 on 09 May 2017, holding that teachers in aided private colleges were not entitled to the enhanced age of 65 years.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Dr. R.S. Sohane v. State of M.P. ((2019) 16 SCC 796) set aside the Dr. S.C. Jain decision and declared that similarly situated teachers were entitled to superannuation at 65 years and to arrears for the intervening period.

Other similarly placed teachers obtained favourable orders from the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 1857/2019 and W.A. No. 378/2018 (and allied appeals) granting full monetary benefits for the period between 62 and 65 years. Armed with these developments, the appellant approached the Supreme Court in the present civil appeal challenging the earlier High Court dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a teacher serving in a 100% government-aided private educational institution in Madhya Pradesh is entitled to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years in parity with teachers in Government colleges and universities.
Whether the principle of “no work, no pay” precludes payment of arrears and other consequential monetary benefits to a teacher who, due to the earlier adverse judgment, did not actually work during the intervening period from 62 to 65 years of age.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Invoked the Supreme Court judgment in Dr. R.S. Sohane, which overruled Dr. S.C. Jain and affirmed the right of aided-institution teachers to retire at 65.
Cited subsequent Division Bench judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (W.A. No. 1857/2019; W.A. No. 378/2018 and allied appeals) that granted similarly situated teachers full arrears and allowances for the 62–65 age band.
Contended that denying him identical relief would be discriminatory, as he is similarly placed.

Respondent State’s Arguments

Acknowledged the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. R.S. Sohane but distinguished the appellant’s case on the basis that he did not actually serve after attaining 62 years, whereas teachers in earlier cases had continued to work under interim orders.
Invoked the equitable doctrine of “no work, no pay,” asserting that the appellant could not claim salary or allowances for a period during which he rendered no services.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Dr. S.C. Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., W.A. No. 950/2015 (Full Bench, MP High Court)	Held that teachers in government-aided private institutions were not entitled to superannuation at 65 years.	Original basis for High Court dismissal; noted by Supreme Court as having been set aside and therefore no longer good law.
Dr. R.S. Sohane v. State of M.P. & Ors., C.A. Nos. 4675-4676 of 2019, (2019) 16 SCC 796	Held that aided-institution teachers are entitled to retire at 65 years and receive monetary benefits for the intervening period.	Followed as binding precedent; formed the cornerstone of the Supreme Court’s present ruling.
Division Bench Judgment, W.A. No. 1857/2019 (MP High Court, 29 Nov 2019)	Condoned delay and granted full superannuation benefits including arrears to a similarly situated teacher.	Cited by appellant; acknowledged by Court as demonstrating consistent application of Sohane principle.
Division Bench Judgment, W.A. No. 378/2018 & allied appeals (MP High Court, 07 Sep 2021)	Directed State to pay arrears and allowances for 62–65 age period, rejecting “no work, no pay” defence.	Relied on by Supreme Court to reject the State’s identical defence in the present case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that after its own decision in Dr. R.S. Sohane, the earlier Full Bench ruling in Dr. S.C. Jain lost precedential value. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s writ appeal—being entirely predicated on the overruled Jain decision—was unsustainable.

Addressing the State’s “no work, no pay” contention, the Court noted:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 378/2018 had already rejected the identical plea, reasoning that teachers were prevented by the State’s illegal action from serving up to 65 years and therefore could not be penalised for non-performance.
Implementation of that High Court judgment, after dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, demonstrated the State’s acceptance of the position for similarly situated teachers.
Equity demanded parity; singling out the appellant would be arbitrary.

On that basis, the Court held the appellant entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits—including arrears of salary and allowances for the 62–65 age span—as though he had continued in service. However, given the “huge delay” in filing the present appeal (subsequently condoned), the Court denied interest on arrears for the period from 09 May 2017 (date of High Court judgment) until the filing of the appeal.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; HIGH COURT JUDGMENT QUASHED.

The appellant is declared entitled to the enhanced superannuation age of 65 years and to all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of salary and allowances for the intervening period, payable within six weeks of the judgment. No interest is payable on arrears for the delay period, and no order as to costs.

Implications: The ruling ensures consistent application of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Dr. R.S. Sohane and disallows the State from invoking “no work, no pay” where teachers were wrongfully prevented from working. It does not articulate new legal principles but reinforces parity among similarly situated educators in Madhya Pradesh.

Show all summary ...

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

superannuation/retirement, namely, whether, the appellant-teacher 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. 4675-4676 of 2019 in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of M.P. & others;

(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. 1838-1839 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.

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 intra-court 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

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

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

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

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)