1. Heard.

2. This is an application seeking condondation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal.

3. In our view the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal has been explained satisfactorily and the same has not been caused on account of deliberate laches on the pan of the appellant. The delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.

4. Heard on the question of admission.

5. This intra-Court appeal arises from the order dated 10.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4061/2000 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

6. Brief facts, leading to filing of the aforesaid petition, are that the appellant who was working as Senior Sports Officer in Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, was superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years by order dated 30.6.2000 with restraspective effect from 30.6.1999. The appellant being aggrieved by the same filed the aforesaid writ petition claiming parity in respect of age of superannuation with the teachers of the State Government for whom the age of superannuation is prescribed as 62 years. The appellant further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered In the case of P.S. Ramamohan Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and another (1997) 8 SCC 350. wherein it has been held that Physical teachers. since Impart physical education, skills, and techniques of games and sports, are covered with the definition of 'teacher' and, therefore, the relief was granted to the extent that they can be retired on attaining the age of 60 years.

7. The learned Single Judge, however, relying upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Viswavidyalaya Jabalpur and another v. P.C. Modi, 2010 (1) MPLJ 375, and finding himself hound by the same dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The aggrieved appellant has preferred the instant writ appeal under the provisions of section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam. 2005.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of P.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra). It is, therefore. urged that the learned Single Judge fell in error in not following the judgment of the apex Court in P.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra). It is also submitted that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Viswavidyalaya Jabalpur and another v. P.C. Modi (supra) does not lay the correct law and. therefore, in view of the apex Coul1judgment in P.S. Ramamohan (supra). the matter requires to be reconsidered by a larger Bench of this Court.

9. Having. heard learned counsel for the appellant and having carefully perused the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Viswavidyalaya Jabalpur and another v. P.C. Modi (supra), we are of the considered opinion, that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves no consideration inasmuch as the Division Bench in the similar case concerning the respondent University has not applied the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of P.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra), by relying upon and in view of the judgment of the apex Court rendered in the case of State of M. P v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai in Civil Appeal No. 5058 of 2009 (3) JLJ 438 arising out of SLP (C) No. 25682 of 2008, wherein their Lordship after considering the decision in the case of P.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra) has specifically held that the proposition laid down therein should not be automatically extended to other cases where employees are covered by different sets of rules. It is further clear from the perusal of the judgment in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Viswavidyalaya Jabalpur and another v. P.C. Modi (supra) that the Division Bench after carefully considering the definition of 'Teacher' contai