Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Shripal Saklecha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7106
1 WP-8878-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8878 of 2025
DR. SHRIPAL SAKLECHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Bhatt - G.A. for respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking quashment of order dated 16.12.2024 whereby
the claim for payment of salary from 16.05.2017 to 31.08.2017 i.e. 31/2
months has been rejected.
Facts of the case in short are as under:-
2. The petitioner has filed W.P. No. 5792/2014 challenging the
retirement at the age of 62 years on 31.08.2014. In the writ petition, interim
order dated 08.08.2014 was granted to the petitioner and by virtue of interim
order she was permitted to continue in the service. The writ petition came up
for hearing on 06.12.2017. The judgment passed by Full Bench in the case of
Dr. S.C. Jain vs. State of M.P. and others in W.A. No.950/2015 decided on
08.05.2017 was brought on record in which, the teachers working in the
aided private institutes were not held entitled to claim their age of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7106
2 WP-8878-2025
superannuation upto 65 years. In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner
has given up his prayer to continue upto the age of 65 years and restricted his
relief to claim salary for a period 31.08.2014 to 16.05.2017. Accordingly,
vide order dated 06.12.2017 the writ petition was disposed of by directing
the respondent No.4 to grant salary to the petitioner from 31.08.2014 to
16.05.2017, in case if he has actually worked during that period, within a
period of three months from today.
3. The petitioner accepted the aforesaid order in the year 2017 and
remained silent. Meanwhile one of the similarly placed professors Dr. R.S.
Sohane approached the Apex Court challenging the order passed by Full
Bench in W.A. No.950/2015. The Apex Court in the case of R.S. Sohane vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 796 set
aside the order of Full Bench and held that the teachers working under a
private institutions are entitled to continue upto 62 years and directed
Government to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of
superannuation till 65 years to the teachers working in private aided
institutes who are working and also those who have worked till they attained
the age of superannuation of 65 years.
4. Shri Patne, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner
submits that in the case of Dr. Jacob Thudipara vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 764, the Apex Court has directed the
Government to pay the salary to all teachers who could have continued upto
the age of 65 years. It is further submitted that the State Government has
accepted the aforesaid order and issued a general direction for payment of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7106
3 WP-8878-2025
salary from the period 62 years to 65 years to all the similarly placed
teachers, therefore, the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the
petitioner.
5. The Apex Court has granted the benefit to those teachers who
approached the Apex Court challenging the order passed by the Full Bench
or dismissal of writ petition, writ appeal filed by the teachers. But in the
present case, the petitioner had accepted the order passed in W.P.
No.5792/2014 in the year 2017 and remained silent. The aforesaid order
passed in writ petition filed by the petitioner has attained finality and the
same has not been set aside in a writ appeal or in an SLP. In the aforesaid
order, this Court directed for payment of salary from 31.08.2014 to
16.05.2017 and the petitioner has given up his claim to continue upto the age
of 65 years.
6. The relevant content of order dated 06.12.2017 passed in W.P.
No.5792/2014 is reproduced below:-
"In view of the above counsel for the petitioner has given up the
prayer to continue up to the age of 65 years and has raised a
limited contention that by virtue of the interim order dated
08.08.2014 the petitioner had continued in service and has retired
in view of the Full Bench judgment by order dated 16.05.2017,
therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the salary for a period of
31.08.2014 to 16.05.2017 which has not been paid to him.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has not disputed that the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Division Bench
judgment.
Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties
and considering the judgment of the Full Bench as well as the
Division Bench noted above, the present writ petition is disposed
off by directing the respondent No.4 to grant salary to the
petitioner from 31.08.2014 to 16.05.2017, in case if he has
actually worked during that period, within a period of three
months from today".
7. The respondent has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7106
4 WP-8878-2025
view of the aforesaid order.
8. I am not inclined to entertain this petition, accordingly the same
stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Vatan
