Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishan Lal Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 WA-197-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2331 of 2024
RAMLAL MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 236 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
MAHESH CHANDRA DIXIT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 238 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR SONI AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 05-02-
2026 18:09:45
2 WA-197-2025
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1/caveator.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 239 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
PRADEEP KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1/caveator.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 277 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
DEEPTI NAG AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1/caveator.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 278 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRADEEP WAKHALE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1/caveator.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 05-02-
2026 18:09:45
3 WA-197-2025
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 387 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
M. L. SHARNAGAT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1/caveator.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 398 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
N.K.SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1/caveator.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 888 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
Versus
GHANSHYAM GIRI GOSWAMI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 949 of 2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 05-02-
2026 18:09:45
4 WA-197-2025
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
BABU LAL BARAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1 on advance copy.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 950 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1 on advance copy.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 968 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE
Versus
HARI MOHAN PANDEY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1 on advance copy.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 970 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
Versus
PANKAJ VIKAS KHARE AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 05-02-
2026 18:09:45
5 WA-197-2025
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1 on advance copy.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 971 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
KAYUM KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 972 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1 on advance copy.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 974 of 2023
MADHYA PRADESH STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Versus
M.N. JAMALI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellants.
None present for the respondent No.1.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 05-02-
2026 18:09:45
6 WA-197-2025
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 975 of 2023
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
ARVIND SINGH PARIHAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the respondent No.1 on advance copy.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2332 of 2024
PANKAJ VIKAS KHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2338 of 2024
BABU LAL BARAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2339 of 2024
BALRAM SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 05-02-
2026 18:09:45
7 WA-197-2025
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2 on advance copy.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2340 of 2024
KAYUM KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WRIT APPEAL No. 2341 of 2024
HARI MOHAN PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WRIT APPEAL No. 197 of 2025
KISHAN LAL RAJAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Pawar - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 8 WA-197-2025 The issue involved in these writ appeals is common; thus, they are being decided by this common order.
2. These writ appeals arise out of a common order dated 15.03.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by the writ Court, whereby all the writ petitions filed by the employees of M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. have been allowed by holding that they were liable to be retired on attaining the age of 62 years.
Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-
3. The appellants were appointed and working in the M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") against the sanctioned and vacant posts. They have been retired upon completing the age of 60 years. The services of employees are governed under the M.P. Rajya Paryatan Vikas Nigam Sewa (Bharti, Padonnati Tatha Seva ki Shartein) Upvidhiya, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Service Rules"). The State of M.P. vide Madhya Pradesh Ordinance No.4 of 2018 published Shaskiya Sewa (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 2018 (Annexure P/2), whereby the word "sixty years" had been replaced by "sixty-two years", meaning thereby, the retirement age of State Government employees had been enhanced from 60 years to 62 years.
4. The Finance Department of the State of M.P. vide circular dated 27.04.2018 granted liberty to all the Corporations, local bodies, etc., to enhance the age of 60 to 62 years of their employees by amending the service & recruitment Rules, considering their financial conditions and need. The appellants approached this Court seeking their retirement at the age of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 9 WA-197-2025 62 years and the monetary benefit as directed by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Soni Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No.1460/2020 dated 12.01.2023; Annexure R2/1). According to the respondents No.1/petitioner in W.A. No.238/2023, there is no requirement to take such decision as such to adopt separately the provision of the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 and to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years, as proviso to Clause 21 of Service Rules, 2010, categorically proclaims that the Rule enacted by the State Government will have overriding effect over the Service Rules, 2010.
5. It was also submitted before the writ court that, as per the proviso to Clauses 21 and 28, the amendment as carried out in the Adhivarshiki Ayu Adhiniyam, 1967, is ipso-facto and mutatis mutandis applicable to the Corporation from the date of its enactment and publication in the official gazette. This Court in W.P. No.27026 of 2019 decided on 12.01.2023 (Mahesh Chandra Dixit Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; Annexure P/5) had already given an interpretation to by-law 28 and held that the rules issued by the State Government would be applicable, especially the M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 2018 will apply to the employees of the Corporation. The writ petitioners approached this Court, later on, claiming a similar benefit by way of writ petitions on the ground that the judgment passed by this Court on 12.01.2023 is a judgment i n rem, then the benefit of a judgment to other similarly situated will be applicable as held by the Apex Court in the case of K. C. Sharma and Others Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 10 WA-197-2025 Vs. Union of India and Others, [(1997) 6 SCC 724].
6. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the appellant- Corporation, opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that these respondents/petitioners are the fence sitters and the judgment dated 12.01.2023 is not a judgment in rem itself. Hence, the respondents/petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of retirement at the age of 62 years. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jaswant Singh and another [(2006) 11 SCC 464].
7. In turn, Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior counsel, placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh and another (supra), which is diluted in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty and others [(2013) 7 SCC 595].
8. Vide common order dated 15.03.2023, the writ Court has allowed the writ petitions by holding that the judgment dated 12.01.2023 is a judgment in rem , not in personam, hence will apply to all similarly situated persons. However, looking to the delay in approaching the Court, they have been denied the arrears of salary for the enhanced period of 2 years only from a date before 3 years of the date of filing of writ petitions till the date they attain the age of 62 years. However, they have been entitled to actual pay fixation and grant of increments resulting in pay of consequential benefits like pension, gratuity, leave encashment, etc.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents/petitioners have filed writ appeals claiming arrears of salary of 2 years, and the M.P. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 11 WA-197-2025 Corporation has filed these writ appeals challenging the relief granted to the writ petitioners.
We have heard Shri Anshuman Singh for the Corporation and Shri Manoj Sharma for the writ petitioners.
10. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, submitted that the writ petitioners have wrongly been granted the benefit of retirement age of 62 years because they had already accepted the retirement age of 60 years and did not challenge it by filing the writ petitions. They are the fence-sitters waited for the decision to be given in the case of other similarly faced employees. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and another (supra), their writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, in which, the relief was confined to those persons, who have filed the writ petition before their retirement or they have obtained the interim order before their retirement.
11. Shri Anshuman Singh, Advocate, has also placed reliance on a judgment of Uttaranchal Pey Jal S.V.A.N Nigam and Others Vs. Arvind Garg and another (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15969 of 2009), in which, also the Apex Court has also followed the law laid down in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and another (supra). Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the case of SBI Vs. M.J. James , reported in 2022 (2) SCC 301, in which it is held that the High Court can always refuse to grant relief to a litigant if it considers that the grant of relief sought is likely to cause substantial hardship or substantial prejudice to the opposite side or would be detrimental to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 12 WA-197-2025 good administration. Shri Singh submitted that the fixation of retirement age is always governed by the statutory rules governing the appointment to a particular post, and even the nature of work. There cannot be a common retirement age for two posts carrying different responsibilities and duties.
12. The Corporation is an autonomous body. Recruitment rules, procedures and service conditions of its employees are governed by the Rules of 2010. Therefore, the Corporation has the discretion to decide the retirement age of its employees. In support of his contention, Shri Singh relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs. Bikartan Das and others reported in (2023) 16 SCC 462.
13. Lastly, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another Vs. B.D. Singhal and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 466 , in which it is held "that whether the age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance the age of superannuation, the date from which the enhancement should be made falls within the realm of policy. The infirmity in the judgment lies in the fact that the High Court has trenched upon the realm of policy making and has assumed to itself jurisdiction over a matter, which lies in the domain of the executive."
14. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that every employee cannot be accepted to claim a similar relief by filling several writ petitions before the High Court, which not only causes a financial burden to the person concerned, but also increases Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 13 WA-197-2025 the pendency of the High Court. Once, this Court has held that the employees of the Corporation are entitled to retire at the age of 62 years alongwith State Government employees, then all the similarly placed employees are entitled to the relief.
15. The Corporation had already adopted the Rules and Regulations framed by the State Government. Now, vide order dated 31.03.2018, the Corporation has already decided to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees working in the Class-I, II and III to 62 years. The said decision has been approved by the State Government vide order dated 29.07.2021 (Annexure R2/5), but the said order has been made effective from the date of the order.
Appreciation & Conclusions
16. In matters of applicability of the mode of appointments, pay scale, revision, upgradation, increments, and age of superannuation once decided by the court order or by framing service rules & regulation, apply uniformly to all the employees/ officers without any discrimination. Therefore, if any judgment has been passed by the Court on these matters, then it would apply to all the employees. For which everyone does not need to come to the Court to get similar orders. It not only causes the financial burden on the employees, sometimes retired employees, but it also causes the burden on Courts and Tribunals to dispose of those cases.
17. In this case, the decision has been taken to enhance the age from 60 to 62 years, then it uniformly applies to all the employees, as stated in the Service Recruitment Rules. Once "sixty years" has been replaced by "sixty-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:4514 WA-197-2025 two years", then no one is liable to be retired at the age of 60 years. The only issue which requires consideration is whether relief can be denied to the appellants because they approached the High Court with a delay, but the question is why they are required to approach; the corporation ought to have given them similar relief.
18. The strong reliance has been placed in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and another (supra). The aforesaid judgment again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the year 2013, in the name of Dayanand Chakrawarty and others (supra). The Apex Court granted the following reliefs in paras-49, 49.1 and 19.2:-
49. In these cases, as we have already held that Regulation 31 shall be applicable and the age of superannuation of employees of the Nigam shall be 60 years, we are of the view that following consequential and pecuniary benefits should be allowed to different sets of employees, who were ordered to retire at the age of 58 years.
49.1. The employees including the respondents, who moved before a Court of law irrespective of the fact, whether interim order was passed in their favour or not, shall be entitled for full salary up to the age of 60 years. The arrears of salary shall be paid to them after adjusting the amount if any paid.
49.2. The employees, who never moved before any Court of law and had to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, they shall not be entitled for arrears of salary. However, in view of Regulation 31, they will deem to have continued in service up to the age of 60 years. In their case, the appellants shall treat the age of superannuation at 60 years, fix the pay accordingly and re-fix the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity, etc. On such calculation, they shall be entitled for arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid.
19. In the case of Dr. Jacob Thudipara Vs. State of M.P. and others [(2022) 7 SCC 764], the Apex Court has considered the principle of "no Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 15 WA-197-2025 work no pay" between similarly situated Teachers working in the aided private Colleges for grant of all consequential and monetary benefits, including arrears of salary and allowances for the intervening period. Paras-5 and 6 are reproduced below:
5. 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 R.S. Sohane v. State of M.P., (2019) 16 SCC 796 they cannot be denied the monetary benefits for the intervening period. It is reported that the said judgment and orders 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.
6. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Jacob Thudipara v. Higher Education Deptt., Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan' is hereby quashed and set aside, which was passed relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in S.C. Jain v. State of M.P. (2017 SCC Online MP 1544), which has been subsequently set aside by this Court in R.S. Sohane v. State of M.P., (2019) 16 SCC 796. 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, 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 pyrrears for the period between 9-5-2017 till the filing of the present appeal.
20. By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of this Court allowed various writ appeals of similarly placed professors in the matter of Balkrishan Rathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(2021) SCC OnLine MP 3778]. The aforesaid order was challenged before Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 16 WA-197-2025 the Apex Court by the State of M.P., vide order dated 08.04.2022, and the said SLP has been dismissed. In the case of R.S. Sohane v. State of M.P., [(2019) 16 SCC 796] , the Apex Court considered Statute No.28, which is a College Code that governs the service conditions of teaching staff. It says that the College Code shall apply to all the Colleges admitted to the privileges of the University.
21. Clause 26 of Statute No.28 (College Code) provides that a permanent teacher shall be entitled to be in the service of the College until he or she completes the age of 60 years. The decision of Coordination Committee dated 07.01.2004 was implemented by an amendment of Clause 26 of Statute No.28 that it was appropriate to maintain the age of superannuation of Principals, Teachers and employees of private College at par to the age of superannuation of Principals, Teachers and employees of government College and held that 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 inspite of the provisions in the College Code.
12. Section 36 of the 1973 Adhiniyam empowers the Coordination Committee to prepare the First Statutes of the Universities. Power is conferred on the Coordination Committee to amend or repeal any Statute and to draft a Statute proposed by the Executive Council of the University. The Coordination Committee is competent to frame Statutes on its own motion. In case a draft is proposed by the Executive Council, the Coordination Committee may approve such a draft and pass the Statute. If the Coordination Committee is not satisfied with the draft, it can reject or return the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 17 WA-197-2025 draft to the Executive Council for reconsideration. The recommendations made by the Executive Council shall, thereafter, be considered by the Coordination Committee which has the power to either approve or reject them. The Statute shall become effective from the date specified by the Coordination Committee after its approval.
13. Statute No.28 which is the College Code governs the service conditions of teaching staff. 'College' is defined in Clause I of the College Code which includes a College receiving grant from the State Government or Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and Non-Grantee College not receiving any aid. The College Code shall apply to all Colleges admitted to the privileges of the University except the Colleges maintained or managed by the State Government or a Municipal Corporation or the University. Clause 26 of the College Code provides that a permanent Teacher shall be entitled to be in the service of the College until he/she completes the age of 60 years. The decision of the Coordination Committee dated 07.01.2004 was implemented by an amendment of the Clause 26 of Statute No.28 (College Code) which is as under:
"It was appropriate to maintain the age of superannuation of Principals, Teachers and employees of private Colleges at par with the age of superannuation of Principals, Teachers and employees of government Colleges."
14. Section 36 of the 1973 Adhiniyam reads as:
36. Statutes How Made (1) The first Statutes of the University shall be prepared by the Co-ordination committee.
(2) The Co-ordination Committee may, from time to time make amend or repeal any Statutes by passing a Statute in the manner hereinafter appearing.
(3) The Co-ordination committee may on receiving a proposal from the Executive Council of a University or on its own motion consider the draft of a Statute that is in the interest of either one or all the Universities;
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:4518 WA-197-2025 (4) Where a draft is proposed by the Executive Council, the Co-ordination Committee may approve of such draft and pass the Statute or reject it or return it to the Executive Council for reconsideration either in whole or in part together with any amendment, which the Coordination Committee may suggest.
(5) After any draft returned under sub-section (4) has been further considered by the Executive Council together with any amendment suggested by the Coordination Committee it shall again be presented to the Co-ordination Committee with a report of the Executive Council thereon and the Co-ordination Committee may approve or reject the Statute.
(6) The Co-ordination Committee shall not take into consideration nor the Executive Council shall propose the draft of any Statutes or of any amendment of a Statute or of the repeal of any Statute:
(a) Affecting the Statutes, power or constitution of any authority of the University until such authority has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the proposal; or
(b) affecting the conditions of admission of Colleges to privileges of the University, until the Academic Council has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the proposal and such opinion shall be forwarded by the Executive Council to the Coordination Committee along with any draft it may propose.
(7) Where the Co-ordination Committee approves the Statutes, they shall become effective from such date as the Co-ordination Committee may specify."
15. There is no manner of doubt that the Coordination Committee has the power to prepare, amend and repeal the Statutes. It can do so on its own motion or on receiving a proposal from the Executive Council of a University. The procedure to be followed in case there is a proposal from the Executive Council of the University to frame Statutes is prescribed thereunder. A plain reading of Section 36 would make it clear that the views of the Executive Council have to be obtained by the Coordination Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 19 WA-197-2025 Committee only in case the proposal has emanated from the Executive Council of a University for preparing a Statute. Such procedure is not applicable when the Coordination Committee prepares a Statute on its own motion. The High Court erroneously held that the amendment made to Statute 28 of the College Code was only a recommendation which was not accepted either by the Executive Council of the respective Universities or by the State Government.
16. Admittedly, the amendment to Statute 28 of the College Code on 07.01.2004 was not based on any proposal from the Executive Council of any University. It was made by the Coordination Committee on its own motion. The interpretation of Section 34 (4) of the 1973 Adhiniyam by the High Court that the Coordination Committee can only suggest modifications of the said Statutes in force is not correct.
17. The High Court has gone wrong in observing that any proposal for amendment to a Statute made by the Coordination Committee has to be sent to the Executive Council of the University. The power to amend the Statute is conferred on the Coordination Committee and not on the Executive Council as has been understood by the High Court. A further error committed by the High Court was to hold that there is no recommendation of the Standing Committee on the basis of which a Resolution was passed on 07.01.2004. The High Court lost sight of the minutes of meeting of the Standing Committee dated 01.04.2003 by which recommendation was made to maintain the age of superannuation of Teachers working in aided private Colleges at par with those working in the Government Colleges.
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 Committee, 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 20 WA-197-2025 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.
20. Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed.
22. In view of the above verdict of the Supreme Court of India, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the writ Court. Accordingly, these writ appeals filed by the Corporation are hereby dismissed.
23. Once it has been held that the retirement age of employees of the Corporation will be according to the age of the State Government, then the respondents/petitioners were wrongly retired after the circular dated 21.06.2018, especially when they were ready and willing to work upto the age of 62 years.
24. The writ court has wrongly confined and denied the monetary benefits, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Sohane (supra) and Dr. Jacob Thudipara (Supra). The writ petitioners are entitled to get the salary for two years with all consequently benefit if already not paid to them. Hence, all the writ appeals filed by the writ petitioners are allowed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 21 WA-197-2025 (VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE JUDGE Shruti Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45