2022 (5) TMI 409 - SC - Indian Laws

Age of superannuation/retirement of appellant-teacher - Appellant serving in 1OO% government aided private educational institution - whether, the appellant teacher is entitled to get the benefits of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years at par with his counterpart teachers serving in Government Colleges and Universities? - HELD THAT - Considering the various orders passed by the High Court, by which 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, we are 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. It is held that the appellant herein 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. The arrears etc., shall be paid to the appellant within a period of six weeks' from today. However, considering the fact that there was a huge delay in preferring the appeal, which has been condoned by this Court, the appellant shall not be entitled to any interest on the arrears for the period between 09.05.2017 till the filing of the present appeal. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over the age of superannuation/retirement entitlement and benefits for a teacher in a government-aided private educational institution.

Analysis:
The appellant, a teacher in a government-aided private educational institution, contested for the benefits of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years, similar to government teachers. Initially, the High Court dismissed the appeal based on a previous decision. However, a subsequent judgment by the Supreme Court in another case clarified that teachers in such institutions are entitled to retirement benefits until 65 years. The appellant argued for the same benefits, citing relevant judgments and orders supporting their claim.

The appellant's counsel highlighted a recent Division Bench decision in a similar case, where a teacher was granted superannuation benefits despite a delay in filing the appeal. Additionally, another judgment directed the State to pay all benefits to teachers and assistant professors for the period between 62 and 65 years of age. These cases set a precedent for the appellant's entitlement to monetary benefits during the same period.

The respondent's counsel did not dispute the factual aspects but argued that the appellant did not work during the disputed period and, therefore, should not receive monetary benefits based on the principle of 'no work no pay.' However, the Court considered previous orders and rejected this argument, emphasizing that the appellant, being similarly situated, should not be deprived of benefits.

After considering the arguments and previous judgments, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant. The High Court's decision was quashed, and the appellant was granted the benefit of retirement at the age of 65 years, including all consequential monetary benefits. The Court directed the payment of arrears within six weeks, with no interest due to the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed on either party.