ORDER

1. Present writ appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 16.2.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18108 of 2020 whereby the appellants/respondents were directed to pay the benefit of salary and other benefits to the petitioner upto the age of 65 years.

2. It is alleged that the writ petition was filed claiming salary in pursuance to the order dated 7.5.2019 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Civil Appeals No. 4675 to 4676 of 2019). It was the case of the writ petitioner that he was working on the post of Professor of Zoology. Vide notice dated 5.4.2016 he was informed that he will be superannuated on 30.4.2016 on attaining the age of 62 years, but the writ petitioner was entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years.

3. It was argued that the law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Suhane (supra), wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the State Government to pay salary to the Teachers who are working in Private Aided Colleges till they attain the age of superannuation i.e. 65 years. The Writ Court vide impugned order has allowed the writ petition holding that the petitioner is entitled for salary and other consequential benefits in terms of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Suhane (supra).

4. The aforesaid order of the Writ Court is being challenged on the ground that since the writ petition has not worked till the age of superannuation i.e. 65 years, therefore, there is no question of granting salary to the writ petition upto the age of 65 years.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the case of Dr. R.S. Suhane (supra) has held as under :

"18. We are not in agreement with the conclusion of the Full Bench of the High Court that the language of the Resolution dated 7.1.2004 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 7.1.2004 which was given ef ect 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 Of icers 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."

6. Denial to make payment of salary was only on the ground that he has not worked upto the age of 65 years, but the fact remains that there was a specific direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to make payment of salary to the Teachers who have worked in Private Aided Institutions upto the age of 65 years i.e. the age of superannuation. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not willing to render his services, rather it is the case of the petitioner that he was pre-maturely retired by the Department and was not permitted to work in the Institution. The