Madhya Pradesh High Court
Basantlal Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2020
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WA-348-2016
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WA-348-2016
(SMT. KUSUM PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 11-02-2020
Per: Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri H. K. Upadhyay, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/ State. T he present appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uc hc ha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 29.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.21047/2012, whereby the present writ petition along with the batch of petitions has been dismissed in similar terms and the reasons mentioned in the order dated 13.8.2014 passed in W.P. No.5168/2012.
Initially, the present appeal was filed by Basantlal Pandey who died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, his wife Smt. Kusum Pandey has been brought on record by amendment in the cause title.
The appellant who was working in the establishment of respondent No.3 who is aided private College, claimed that he is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 65 years in view of the Circular dated 14.9.2012. The appellant was claiming parity in respect of the age of superannuation with the Government colleges.
Counsel for the appellant urged that the aforesaid issue was referred to the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. S. C. Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - WA No.950/2015 reported in 2019(1) JLJ 250, wherein it was held that the Teachers working in the Government aided institutions are not entitled to the age of superannuation prescribed for the Government Colleges, however, the aforesaid judgment has been reversed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R. S. Sohane Vs. State of M.P. and others - Civil Appeal Nos.4675-4676 of 2019 by order dated 7.5.2019. He referred to para 18 and 19 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under
:-
2 WA-348-2016 "18. We are not in agreement with the conclusion of the Full Bench of the High Court that the language of the Resolution dated 07.01.2004 is in the nature of a recommendation. It is clear from the facts narrated above that the matter pertaining to the age of superannuation of Teachers working in aided private Colleges was referred by the Coordination Committee to the Standing Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Standing C o m m i t t e e , the Coordination Committee passed a Resolution on 07.01.2004 which was given effect to by an amendment to Clause 26 of the College Code. The second point answered by the Full Bench is that the UGC Regulations are not applicable to the State Government per se but are to be adopted by the State Government. The High Court was of the opinion that the Government had accepted the payment of revised pay scales only in respect of the Teachers working in the Government Institutes. The Standing Committee and the Coordination Committee of the University is represented by the Senior Officers of the State Government and it is not for the State Government to contend that they will not extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation till 65 years to the Teachers working in the private aided institutes in spite of the provisions in the College Code.
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."
Thus, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R. S. Sohane (supra).
The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. R. S. Sohane (supra).
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
mrs. mishra
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MRS DEEPA MISHRA
Date: 2020.02.17 12:14:20 IST