Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. R.B. Tiwari on 19 July, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 19th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 821 of 2022
Between:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P.
2. C O M M I S S I O N E R , HIGHER EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH BHOPAL
(M.P.)
3. THE EDUCATION OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL,
GOVT. SCIENCE COLLEGE DISTRICT REWA
(M.P.)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MS. JANHAVI PANDIT - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
DR. R.B. TIWARI S/O LATE SHRI S.R. TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY JANTA
COLLEGE REWA R/O NEAR YELLOW TEMPLE
NIRALA NAGAR REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHAY KUMAR PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra, passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 7/22/2022 ORDER
5:53:53 PM
Present writ appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 16.02.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18108 of 2020 whereby
the appellants/respondents were directed to pay the benefit of salary and other
benefits to the petitioner upto the age of 65 years.
It is alleged that the writ petition was filed claiming salary in pursuance to
the order dated 07.05.2019 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dr. R.S. Sohane vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Civil Appeal
Nos. 4675 to 4676 of 2019). It was the case of the writ petitioner that he was
working on the post of Professor of Zoology. Vide notice dated 05.04.2016 he
was informed that he will be superannuated on 30.04.2016 on attaining the age
of 62 years, but the writ petitioner was entitled to continue upto the age of 65
years.
It was argued that the law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dr. R.S. Suhane (supra) , wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
directed the State Government to pay salary to the Teachers who are working in
Private Aided Colleges till they attain the age of superannuation i.e. 65 years.
The Writ Court vide impugned order has allowed the writ petition holding that
the petitioner is entitled for salary and other consequential benefits in terms of
the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Suhane
(supra).
The aforesaid order of the Writ Court is being challenged on the ground
that since the writ petition has not worked till the age of superannuation i.e. 65
years, therefore, there is no question of granting salary to the writ petition upto
the age of 65 years.
Signature Not VerifiedHon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the case of Dr. R.S. Suhane
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
(supra) has held as under:
Signing time: 7/22/2022
5:53:53 PM
" 18. We are not in agreement with the conclusion of
the Full Bench of the High Court that the language of
the Resolution dated 07.01.2004 is in the nature of a
recommendation. It is clear from the facts narrated
above that the matter pertaining to the age of
superannuation of Teachers working in aided private
Colleges was referred by the Coordination
Committee to the Standing Committee. On the basis of
the recommendations of the Standing Committee, the
Coordination Committee passed a Resolution on
07.01.2004 which was given effect to by an
amendment to Clause 26 of the College Code. The
second point answered by the Full Bench is that the
UGC Regulations are not applicable to the State
Government per se but are to be adopted by the State
Government. The High Court was of the opinion that
the Government had accepted the payment of revised
pay scales only in respect of the Teachers working in
the Government Institutes. The Standing Committee
and the Coordination Committee of the University is
represented by the Senior Officers of the State
Government and it is not for the State Government to
contend that they will not extend the benefit of
enhancement of the age of superannuation till 65
years to the Teachers working in the private aided
institutes in spite of the provisions in the College
Code.
19. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the
judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and the
consequential judgments of the Division Bench of the
High Court and direct the Government of Madhya
Pradesh to pay salaries to the Teachers in aided
private Colleges who are working and also those who
have worked till they attained the age of
superannuation of 65 years."
Denial to make payment of salary was only on the ground that he has not
worked upto the age of 65 years, but the fact remains that there was a specific
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to make payment of salary to the
Teachers who have worked in Private Aided Institutions upto the age of 65
Signature Not Verified
years i.e. the age of superannuation. It is not the case of the petitioner that he
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 7/22/2022
5:53:53 PM
was not willing to render his services, rather it is the case of the petitioner that
he was pre-maturely retired by the Department and was not permitted to work in
the Institution. The petitioner was not at fault at any point of time. The petitioner
was always willing to perform his duty, but he was prevented to do so for the
reasons, which is solely attributable to the respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with the issue has considered the fact that the power to
amend an statute is conferred to the Coordination Committee and not on the
Executive Council. Therefore, the error was committed by the High Court to
hold that there is no recommendation of the Standing Committee.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Dayanand Chakrawarty and others; (2013) 7 SCC 595 had held that "if an
employee is prevented by the employer from performing his duties, the
employee cannot be blamed for having not worked, and the principle of "no
work no pay" shall not be applicable to such employee."
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balkrishna Rathi vs. State
of M.P. (W.A.No.378 of 2018) has considered the similar controversy and has
held that even if an employee has not rendered his services, but he was forced
by the employer not to work, therefore, without applying the principle of "no
work and no pay" has also directed to pay salary.
Therefore, in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Dr. R.S. Suhane (supra) , the writ petitioner was entitled to get the
salary upto the age of 65 years. Refusing to continue the petitioner upto the age
of 65 years was rightly held to be illegal by the Writ Court.
Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as
Signature Notthe order
Verified of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Suhane
Signed by: ANINDYA
(supra), no illegality appears to have been committed by the Writ Court. The
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 7/22/2022
5:53:53 PM
order passed by the Writ Court is just and proper and does not call for any
interference in the present writ appeal.
Writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications are also disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 7/22/2022
5:53:53 PM
