Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. R.K. Thassu on 13 June, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
REVIEW PETTION No.813 OF 2020
BETWEEN :-
1- STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2- COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, 5TH FLOOR, SATPURA BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3- PRINCIPAL, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
AMBAH P.G. COLLEGE, MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
1- DR. R.K. THASSU S/O SHRI O.N. THASSU, RETIRED
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, 39-A GOVIND GARDEN,
GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2- CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY AMBAH P.G.
COLLEGE AMBAH, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIVEK JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND
(2)
SHRI K.K. PRAJAPATI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 22/04/2022
Delivered on : 13/06/2022
This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Rohit Arya passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated
17/02/2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No. 997/2018.
2- The facts relevant for disposal of this Review Petition are in
narrow compass as stated infra:
(i) Respondent No.1 was working as Assistant Professor in aided P.G.
College, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.).
(ii) Initially, the age of superannuation was 62 years. The co-ordination
committee of all the Universities in the State decided to amend the
College Code and by Clause 26, it was decided to bring the age of
superannuation in private colleges at par with government colleges.
(iii) In the year 2010, the retirement age in Government colleges was
enhanced to 65 years, as the U.G.C. recommendations in the matter were
accepted by the State Government.
(iv) On 06.10.2016, a notice of retirement was served upon respondent
No.1 intimating that he would retire on completion of 62 years' of age on
30.11.2016.
(v) Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition
which came to be registered as Writ Petition No.7999/2016; however, no
interim order was granted in favour of respondent No.1.
(vi) Meanwhile, in similar matter the co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
inter alia, referred the question to the larger Bench as to applicability of
age of superannuation as 65 years in case of teachers working in aided
private institutes. A Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.950 of
2015 held that the teachers working in aided private institutes shall not be
entitled to claim that their age of superannuation would be 65 years.
(vii) In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Full Bench, the writ
petition of respondent No.1 was dismissed on 27.06.2017.
(viii) The order of the Full Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble
Apex Court. The Apex Court vide interim order dated 17.05.2018 passed
in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.31968-31969 of 2017 and connected
matters directed as under:
"In the government sector the age of retirement is 65 years.
The petitioners belong to the Government aided sector.
In case any of the petitioners are due to retire in the meantime
on attaining the age of 62 years, their retirement shall be
deferred till the next date of hearing."
(ix) Thereafter, vide order dated 16.07.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court clarified further:
"We make it clear that this interim protection will be available
also to those who have been working on the strength of the
interim order granted by the High Court."
(x) Meanwhile Respondent No.1 had filed Writ Appeal No.997 of
2018 which came to be dismissed on 15.02.2019 in the following terms:
"In the present case, since the appellant already stood retired
on attaining the age of 62 years, and there was no interim order
in his favour; therefore, as presently advised, the appeal is
disposed of with a liberty to the appellant to revive the same in
case if the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirms
the age of retirement of teachers of aided schools as 65 years. In
that event, appellant/petitioner would be entitled to all
consequential reliefs."
(Emphasis Supplied)
(xi) Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated
07.05.2019 set aside the judgment of Full Bench of this Court with the
following directions:
"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."
(Emphasis Supplied)
(xii) In view of the liberty granted to respondent no.1 vide order dated
15/2/2019 (Supra), Writ Appeal No.997 of 2018 stood revived by order
dated 15.07.2019 passed in Misc. Civil Case No.1657 of 2019.
(xiii) However, during the pendency of Writ Appeal No.997 of 2018,
respondent No.1 attained the age of 65 years on 30.11.2019.
(xiv) Lastly on 17.02.2020, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while
adverting to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. R.S. Sohane
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors [Civil Appeal No.4675-4576 of 2019 arising out
of SLP (C) Nos.31968-31969 of 2017] quashed the order of learned Writ
Court passed in Writ Petition No.7999 of 2016 as well as that dated
05.08.2016 superannuating the petitioner at the age of 62 years w.e.f.
30.11.2016 and held him entitled to full salary and allowances due to him
treating him to be in service from 01.12.2016 to 31.11.2019 with further
direction to revise his pension accordingly.
(xv) Aggrieved by the aforesaid dictum in Writ Appeal No.997 of 2018,
the present Review Petition has been filed by the State.
3. Shri Khot, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
petitioners/State,while laying emphasis on the last paragraph of the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane (supra)
inter alia contended that the pecuniary benefits in the form of salary cum
pension etc. could only be extended to those employees who have
worked till they attained the age of superannuation of 65 years. Since
respondent No.1 has not continued to work after attaining the age of 62
years, either by force of interim order or otherwise, he is not entitled to
the benefits so claimed and therefore the order passed in Writ Appeal
No.997 of 2018 is liable to be recalled.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance on
decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in Writ Appeal No.
378 of 2018 and connected matters which has been affirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 08.04.2022 passed in Special Leave
to Appeal No.5199-5202 of 2022; decisions in Writ Appeal No.1857 of
2019 dated 29.11.2019 & Writ Appeal No.802 of 2020 dated 01.09.2020
delivered by a co-ordinate Benches at Principal Seat at Jabalpur and upon
the decision in Writ Appeal No.108 of 2016 dated 15.07.2019 delivered
by a co-ordinate Bench at Gwalior; wherein, similarly situated employees
have been accorded the benefit. Accordingly, it is prayed that respondent
No.1 also deserves parity in treatment.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court cannot
remain oblivious of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in Writ
Appeal No.997 of 2018; wherein, while disposing of the appeal liberty
was extended to respondent No.1 to revive the same in case the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirms the age of retirement of
teachers of aided schools as 65 years and in that event
appellant/petitioner would be entitled to all consequential reliefs, and
also that benefit has been extended to similarly situated employees in
Writ Appeal No. 378 of 2018 and connected matters which has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 08.04.2022 passed
in Special Leave to Appeal No.5199-5202 of 2022 and in other cases as
discussed above.
Indeed, in terms of the quoted paragraph 19 of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.05.2019 (supra), the submissions
advanced by Shri Khot, Government Advocate, have substantial force, as
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the benefit to such teachers in
aided private colleges who are either working or have worked till
attaining the age of superannuation of 65 years. Shri Khot also appears to
be right while he submits that the co-ordinate Benches at Jabalpur and
Indore while construing the aforesaid order of the Apex Court (paragraph
19 in particular) have concluded that the Apex Court in the case of R.S.
Sohane (supra) did not decide regarding treatment of period (intervening
period) between the age of 62 to 65 years (Writ Appeal No.378 of 2018)
but for the purpose of grant of salary the monetary benefit flowing from
the order has been made applicable to such teachers who have not
worked after attaining the age of 62 years till the age of 65 years.
However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that Special Leave to
Appeal No.5199-5202 of 2022 arising out of decision of co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 378 of 2018 and connected
matters has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 08.04.2022.
Consequently, maintaining judicial discipline, the monetary
benefits flowing to similarly situated teachers shall also enure to the
benefit of respondent No.1 on the principle of parity.
6. With the aforesaid, the Review Petition stands dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA) (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
ANAND
SHRIVASTA
VA
2022.06.14
10:55:42
+05'30'
