BALKRISHNA RATHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals involve a singular question i.e. whether the appellants whose right to continue up to 65 years is duly recognized can be deprived from the benefit of salary for the period they were not permitted to perform their duties?

(2.) Facts are taken from W.A. No. 378/2018. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Professor on 23.09.1983. the respondents passed an order dtd. 02.01.2018 (Annexure-P/10) with an intention to retire the appellant w.e.f. 31.03.2018. The appellants unsuccessfully challenged it in W.P. No. 5801/2018, which came to be dismissed on 13.03.2018.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present writ appeals were filed before this Bench. In the meantime, similar matter travelled to Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane v/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Civil Appeal Nos. 4675-4676 of 2019). Indisputably, the Apex Court opined that teachers have right to continue up to the age of 65 years. The Apex Court in the case of R.S. Sohane (supra) did not decide regarding treatment of period (intervening period) between the age of 62 years to 65 years for the purpose of grant of salary. The judgment of R.S. Sohane (supra) was brought to the notice of this Bench on 11.12.2018. In furtherance of said judgment, it was held that the present appellants are also entitled to continue up to 65 years of age. The respondents were directed to permit the appellants to rejoin the duty and to continue him up to the age of 65 years. Pertinently, in this order, no directions were issued regarding payment of salary for the intervening period.