[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kishore Kumar Tiwari vs Union Of India on 19 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
1 WP-25779-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 25437 of 2018
DR. KIRAN KUMAR KALYANKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Saurabh Jain - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 15107 of 2018
ANIL BELSARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Saurabh Jain - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
WRIT PETITION No. 6000 of 2019
DR.SATISH GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 12/19/2025
6:03:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
2 WP-25779-2019
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Saurabh Jain - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
WRIT PETITION No. 25779 of 2019
DR. KISHORE KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Saurabh Jain - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
WRIT PETITION No. 7385 of 2020
GOPAL PRASAD SHIVHARE
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Saurabh Jain - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
WRIT PETITION No. 10584 of 2020
OMPRAKASH DOORWAR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 12/19/2025
6:03:34 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
3 WP-25779-2019
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Saurabh Jain - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
WRIT PETITION No. 12926 of 2023
DR K K TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Saurabh Jain - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
WRIT PETITION No. 1705 of 2025
DR. K.K. TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra- Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Saurabh Jain - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for the respondent no.4.
ORDER
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
4 WP-25779-2019
Reserved on : 16/12/2025
Delivered on : 19/12/2025
ORDER
The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were working as Sports
Officer/Senior Sports Officer/Librarian in the Higher Education Department
of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh. They are aggrieved by action of the
respondent-Higher Education Department in retiring them at the age of 62
years. They claim that they, being the teachers, are entitled to continue up to
the age of 65 years as in the case of class room teachers. For purposes of
convenience, the facts/documents are referred from W.P. No.25437/2018.
[2]. For decision of these cases, the facts are not in dispute. Further, as
discussed herein-below, the issue is also no more res integra.
[3]. In view of the recommendations made by the University Grants
Commission based upon the decision taken by it on 07-08/10/2008, the
Ministry of Home Resources Development, Department of Higher
Education, Government of India issued an Office Memorandum dated
31.12.2008 (Annexure P/3) laying down the scheme of revision of pay of
teachers and equivalent cadres in Universities and Colleges. For purposes of
decision of these cases, Clause 8(f) is relevant and is thus reproduced herein-
below.
"(f) Age of Superannuation:
(i) In order to meet the situation arising out of shortage of
teachers in universities and other teaching Institutions and the
consequent vacant positions therein, the age of
superannuation for teachers in Central Educational
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
5 WP-25779-2019
Institutions has already been enhanced to sixty five years,
vide the Department of Higher Education letter
No.F.No.119/2006-U.II dated 23.3.2007, for those involved
in class room teaching in order to attract eligible persons to
the teaching career and to retain teachers in service for a
Longer period. Consequent on upward revision of the age of
superannuation of teachers, the Central Government has
already authorized the Central Universities, vide Department
of Higher Education D.O. letter No.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U)
dated 30.3.2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of
Vice Chancellors of Central Universities from 65 years to 70
years, subject to amendments in the respective statutes, with
the approval of the competent authority (Visitor in the case
of Central Universities).
(ii) Subject to availability of vacant positions and fitness,
teachers shall also be re-employed on contract appointment
beyond the age of sixty five years up to the age of seventy
years. Re-employment beyond the age of superannuation
shall, however, be done selectively, for a limited period of 3
years in the first instance and then for another further period
of 2 years purely on the basis of merit, experience, area of
specialization and peer group review and only against
available vacant positions without affecting selection or
promotion prospects of eligible teachers.
(iii) Whereas the enhancement of the age of superannuation
for teachers engaged in class room teaching is intended to
attract eligible persons to a career in teaching and to meet the
shortage of teachers by retaining teachers in service for a
longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in the
categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education,
the increase in the age of superannuation from the present
sixty two years shall not be available to the categories of
Librarians and Directors of Physical Education."
[4]. Pursuant to the aforesaid OM issued by Government of India, the
Higher Education Department of State of Madhya Pradesh issued the order,
dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure P/2). Clause 8 of this order being relevant is
reproduced hereinunder.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
6 WP-25779-2019
"8. भारत सरकार, मानव संसाधन वकास मं ालय क अिधसूचना
दनांक 31.12.08 क अनुशंसा के अनु प क डका-8 f (iii) के
अनुसार लास म ट िचंग म संल न टाफ क अिधवा षक आयु
दनांक 16.04.2010 से 62 वष से बढ़ाकर 65 वष क जाती है ।
नॉन-ट िचंग टाफ यथा महा व ालयीन ंथपाल , क ड़ािधकारय
एवं व व ालयीन सहायक ंथपाल / उप ंथपाल / ंथपाल,
सहायक संचालक/उप संचालक/संचालक (शार रक िश ा) के पद
पर कायरत अिधका रय क अिधवा षक आयु 62 वष
यथावंत रहे गी"
[5]. It is thus evident that the age of retirement of class room teachers
was enhanced from 62 to 65 years. However, the said benefit was not
extended to other category of employees vis. Librarian, Sports Officer etc.
The petitioners being Senior Sports Officer/Sports Officer are thus are not
covered by the aforesaid enhanced age of retirement. The ground for not
enhancing the age of superannuation in relation to these category of
employees, as assigned in the aforesaid order by Government of Madhya
Pradesh, is that there is shortage of class room teachers while there is no
such shortage in the category of Librarian/Sports Officer etc. Thus, the
petitioners being the Senior Sports Officers/Sports Officers have been made
to retire at the age of 62 years and have not been given benefit of retirement
at the age of 65 years.
[6]. This issue was considered by this Court in the case of Shivanand
Mishra Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors . in W.P. No.9640/2019 . Pertinently, the
aforequoted order, dated 31.12.2008, issued by Government of India was
under challenge in the said case. Further, the order dated 16.04.2010 issued
by Higher Education Department of State of Madhya Pradesh was also under
challenge. It be noted here that the order, dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure P/2),
which is challenged in this writ petition, has been issued in reference to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
7 WP-25779-2019
said order dated 16.04.2010 which was challenged in the case of Shivanand
Mishra (supra). This Court after referring to various Coordinate Bench
judgments as the also the judgment of Apex Court, upheld the decision of the
Government of Madhya Pradesh in not enhancing the age of superannuation
of Sports Teachers.
[7]. The aforesaid action of the respondents was also challenged before
this Court in the case of S.K. Tiwari Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. in W.P.
No.8306/2020. In this case also, the Court took the same view that the
benefit of enhancement of age is not available to the Sports Teachers.
However, in view of the fact that by virtue of interim order passed, the
petitioner therein had continued upto the age of 65 years and during the
pendency of the petition, the writ petitioner has already crossed the age of 65
years, the petition was disposed of as having rendered infructuous.
[8]. It is thus seen that the similar issue is already decided by this
Court in the case of Shivanand Mishra & S.K. Tiwari (supra).
[9]. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish the case
of Shivanand Mishra (supra) on the ground that the writ petitioners in those
cases failed to bring on record the empirical data to support their case that
there is shortage of staff in the category of Librarians and Sports Officer as
observed by this Court in para-6 of the order. However, in this case, the
petitioners have brought on record the relevant data to show that there is
shortage of staff in the category of Sports Officer also. In support of this
submission, learned counsel referred to averments made in paragraph 5.2 &
6(X) of the writ petition. He thus submitted that the decision taken by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
8 WP-25779-2019
respondents is unreasonable and arbitrary and the petitioners deserve to
continue till the age of 65 years.
[10]. Before dealing with the aforesaid distinction drawn by counsel
for the petitioner, it is profitable to refer to provisions of F.R. 56 which
provide for age of retirement of the Government servants. F.R.56(1-g) (a)
provides as under:
"F.R. 56. Age of superannuation.- xxx xxx xxx
(1-g) (a) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), every
Government Teacher other than a Teacher mentioned in sub-
rules (1-a), (1-h) and (1-i), shall retire from service on the
afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the
age of sixty five years:
Provided that every Government Teacher other than a
Teacher mentioned in sub-rules (1-a), (1-h) and (1-i), whose
date of birth is the first of a month, shall retire from service
on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on
attaining the age of sixty five years.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause, a "Government
Teacher" means a Government Teacher by whatever
designation called, appointed to a post, other than to the post
of a Librarian or a Sports Officer, mentioned under Schedule-
I of the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate
Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, for the purpose of
teaching in a Government educational institution in
accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such
appointment, who not only possesses all the qualifications
prescribed by the University Grant Commission for the post
he holds but is also involved in class room teaching and shall
also include a teacher who is appointed to an administrative
post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in
teaching for not less than twenty years, provided he holds a
lien on a post in the concerned Government educational
institution."
[11]. Thus, the fundamental rule itself creates a distinction between the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
9 WP-25779-2019
class room teachers and a teacher who is not engaged in class room teaching.
The petitioners being Sports Officer are specifically excluded from the class
room teachers and are thus not entitled to continue upto 65 years of age.
[12]. In view of the fact that there is specific age of retirement
provided for Government servants like petitioners in F.R. 56, even if the
submissions made by petitioners' counsel is accepted, the petitioners do not
get any benefit as they are bound by the aforementioned rule. Since, the
aforesaid provisions of F.R. 56 are not under challenge in these petitions, the
petitioners are bound by the said provision and are thus required to be retired
on attaining the age of 62 years.
[13]. The learned counsel for the petitioners' at this stage, sought
liberty of this Court to amend the writ petition challenging the vires of F.R.
56. However, challenging the varies of F.R. 56 at this point of time would be
of no use to the petitioners inasmuch as they all have crossed the age of
superannuation. It is settled legal position that a rule is valid till it is declared
otherwise. Thus, even if the provisions of F.R. 56 are to be declared ultra
vires, that would be operative from the date of such declaration and the
petitioners would not get any benefit from the said declaration. Thus,
permitting them to amend the writ petition at this stage challenging the vires
of F.R. 56 would be of no benefit to the petitioners. Therefore, their request
to amend the writ petition is declined.
[14]. At this stage, the learned counsel for petitioners informed this
Court that some of the writ petitioners namely, Shri K.K. Tiwari, Shri Kiran
Kumar Kalyankar, Shri Anil Bilsare, Shri Gopal Prasad Shivhare & Shri
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
10 WP-25779-2019
Satish Gupta have already filed W.P. No.5950/2021 challenging the vires of
FR 56 and the same is pending. Thus, for these writ petitioners, it is observed
that their entitlement to continue upto the age of 65 years would depend
upon outcome of the said writ petition.
[15]. The interim orders were passed in some of these writ petitions as
a result of which the writ petitioners have continued up to the age of 65
years. This Court in the case of S.K. Tiwari (supra) held in para-10 that there
would not be any recovery of amount paid to the employee towards salary
for the period he has continued in service by virtue of interim orders. Thus,
the petitioners in these cases, where the interim order is passed and have
been paid salary upto the age of 65 years, are also not required to refund the
amount.
[16]. Consequently, the challenge to the decision of respondents
retiring the petitioners at the time of 62 years is found to be just and proper
and does not warrant any interference by this Court. These petitions except
W.P. No.12926/2023 & W.P. No.1705/2025 filed by Dr. K.K. Tiwari, are
accordingly, dismissed. However, it is directed that the salary paid to the writ
petitioners on account of interim orders passed by this Court shall not be
recovered from them.
[17]. The retiral dues including leave encashment of Dr. K.K. Tiwari
were not settled because of the dispute with regard to his date of retirement
pending before this Court and an interim order passed. This is subject matter
of W.P. No.12926/2023 & W.P. No.1705/2025. Now since, the said issue is
settled as discussed above, the respondents are directed to forthwith settle his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33673
11 WP-25779-2019
retiral dues treating him to have retired at the age of 62 years. Let this be
done with 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this
order. The petitioner may raise his claim for interest on the delayed payment
of his retiral dues which shall also be decided by respondents by passing
speaking order.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
