Service Law – Superannuation /Retirement – Benefit of enhanced age of superannuation – Entitlement to – Appellant was teacher in a 1OO% government aided private educational institution – He claimed entitlement to benefits of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years (from 62 years) at par with his counterpart teachers serving in Government Colleges and Universities – Division Bench of High Court dismissed writ appeals filed by Appellant and others, relying upon an earlier decision of Full Bench of High Court wherein it was held that teachers serving in aided private educational institutions are not entitled to get benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years – However, subsequently the said Full Court decision of the High Court was set aside by Supreme Court in Dr. R.S. Sohane case – Further, in two subsequent decisions of High Court in Writ Appeals filed by similarly situated teachers, they were held entitled for superannuation with all consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salaries and allowances of the intervening period between 62 and 65 years of age – On appeal, held: Submission of State that on principle of ‘no work no pay’ the teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits for the intervening period between 62 and 65 years of age, cannot be accepted – Various orders passed by the High Court in similar facts and situation required to be considered – Appellant being a similarly situated teacher cannot be singled out – Appellant entitled to benefit of enhanced age of superannuation i.e., 65 years – He is entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salaries and etc., as if, he would have been continued up to the age of 65 years.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Considering the various orders passed by the High Court in similar facts and situation and not accepting the submission on behalf of the State that on the principle of ‘no work no pay’ the teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits for the intervening period between 62 years and 65 years of age, this Court is of the opinion that appellant shall be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits including the arrears of salaries and allowances for the intervening period, as if he would have been retired at the age of 65 years. The appellant being similarly situated teacher cannot be singled out. Even in the case of Writ Appeal No. 378/2018 and other allied writ appeals, it was submitted by the State that on the principle of ‘no work no pay’ such teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefits. However, the High Court vide detailed judgment and order has negated such a plea and defence and has observed that as the teachers were prevented from serving up to the age of 65 years though they were entitled to, as held by this Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane, they cannot be denied the monetary benefits for the intervening period. It is reported that the said judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court has been implemented by the State after the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment and order has been dismissed by this Court. [Para 4][72-A-D]
2. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation i.e., 65 years. He shall be entitled to all the consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salaries and etc., as if, he would have been continued up to the age of 65 years. [Para 5][72-F]
Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of M.P. & others, (2019) 16 SCC 796 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.