Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Abdul Haleem Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 July, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 5th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 11715 of 2022
Between:-
1. DR. ABDUL HALEEM KHAN S/O LATE SHRI
ABDUL JALEEL KHAN , AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED, ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN ZOOLOGY IN SAIFIA SCIENCE
COLLEGE, BHOPAL, R/O A-155, BUILDING NO.2,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KOH E FIZA
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DR. AZIZUL HASAN ANSARI S/O LATE SHRI Z.H.
ANSARI , AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN CHEMISTRY IN SAIFIA SCIENCE
COLLEGE, BHOPAL R/O HIG D-18 KEHKASHA
COMPLEX PHASE-II BDA COLONY KOH-E-FIZA
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DR. S.N. PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI RAM ACHAL
PANDEY , AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN MATHEMATICS IN SAIFIA
SCIENCE COLLEGE, BHOPAL, R/O A-57 VIJAY
NAGAR, LAAL GHATI, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DR. SYED AFTAB IQBAL S/O LATE SHRI S. FASIH
UDDIN , AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
CHEMISTRY IN SAIFIA SCIENCE COLLEGE,
BHOPAL R/O 10, NEW MAULANA AZAD COLONY
IDGAH HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI L.C. PATNE, ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
SAN 1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
Digitally signed by BHARTI GADGE
Date: 2022.07.05 16:43:04 IST
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
2
VALLABH BHAWAN MANTRALAYA BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)- 462004
2. THE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF
MADHYA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
ED UCATION , SATPURA BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE EDUCATION OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL,
GOVERNMENT HAMIDIYA ARTS AND
COMMERCE COLLEGE, GINNORI ROAD, HATHI
KHANA, BUDHWARA, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE PRINCIPAL, SAIFIA SCIENCE COLLEGE,
SAIFIA COLLEGE ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ALOK AGNIHOTRI, DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2022 (Annexure
P/4) issued by the Commissioner, Department of Higher Education,
Government of M.P., whereby their claim for grant of full salary and allowances
for the period beyond the age of 62 years upto 65 years has been rejected on
the ground that they were retired prematurely.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the case of Dr.R.S.
Sohane Vs. State of M.P. and others (2019) 16 SCC 796, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has passed a judgment in re m and enhancing the age of
superannuation of the teachers from 62 years to 65 years serving in 100%
Government aided private colleges and their entitlement has also been settled by
Signature Not Verified
the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Dr.(Mrs.) Rukmani Tiwari
SAN
Digitally signed by BHARTI GADGE
Vs. State of M.P. and others in Writ Appeal No.108/2016 decided on
Date: 2022.07.05 16:43:04 IST
15.07.2019, in the case of R.K. Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others in
W.A. No.1857/2019 decided on 29.11.2019, Dr. Sushant Kumar Sinha
Vs. State of M.P. and others [WA No.502/2020, decided on 01.09.2020],
and Balkrishna Rathi Vs. State of M.P. and others [W.A. No.378/2018,
decided on 07.09.2021.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that these cases
are squarely applicable to the case of petitioners and they are entitled to full
salary and allowances beyond the age of 62 years upto the age of 65 years by
negating the principle of no work no pay applied by the respondents. It is
submitted that a joint representation (Annexure P/3) in this regard is already
pending before the authority concerned and prayed that the authority be
directed to consider and decide the joint representation of the petitioners in the
light of the orders in the cases of Dr.R.S. Sohane, Dr. (Mrs) Rukmani
Tiwari, R.K. Sharma, Dr. Sushant Kumar Sinha and Balkrishna Rathi
(supra).
Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that it is a joint
representation filed by the present petitioners and no details have given in it as
to when these petitioners were retired. He submits that the petitioners be
directed to file individual representation giving their details as to when they were
retired and the other documents in support of their claim.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this
petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file individual
representation giving all the details with regard to their service career and also
the documents in support thereof along with the copy of the orders passed by
Signature Not Verified
SAN the Supreme Court in the aforestated SLP as well as by the Division Benches in
Digitally signed by BHARTI GADGE
Date: 2022.07.05 16:43:04 IST
Writ Appeals along with the certified copy of this order before the respondent
No.1/Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Bhopal, within a
period of 15 days. In case, if such individual representation is filed before the
respondent No.1/Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Bhopal,
he in turn shall decide the same in the light of the orders passed by the Supreme
Court as well as by the Division Benches of this Court and pass a speaking
order.
Let this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date
of receipt of representation. If the petitioners are found entitled, the benefit be
extended to them within a further period of 60 days without being influenced by
the order dated 11.02.2022 (Annexure P/4).
With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(NANDITA DUBEY)
JUDGE
b
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by BHARTI GADGE
Date: 2022.07.05 16:43:04 IST
