Supreme Court grants teacher retirement benefits until age 65, orders arrears payment within six weeks.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, a teacher in a government-aided private educational institution, granting retirement benefits until the age of 65 years, similar to government teachers. The Court quashed the High Court's decision and directed the payment of arrears within six weeks, without interest. The appellant successfully argued for entitlement to monetary benefits during the disputed period based on relevant judgments and orders, despite not working during that time. The appeal was allowed with no costs imposed on either party.

---

---

Issues:
Dispute over the age of superannuation/retirement entitlement and benefits for a teacher in a government-aided private educational institution.

Analysis:
The appellant, a teacher in a government-aided private educational institution, contested for the benefits of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years, similar to government teachers. Initially, the High Court dismissed the appeal based on a previous decision. However, a subsequent judgment by the Supreme Court in another case clarified that teachers in such institutions are entitled to retirement benefits until 65 years. The appellant argued for the same benefits, citing relevant judgments and orders supporting their claim.

The appellant's counsel highlighted a recent Division Bench decision in a similar case, where a teacher was granted superannuation benefits despite a delay in filing the appeal. Additionally, another judgment directed the State to pay all benefits to teachers and assistant professors for the period between 62 and 65 years of age. These cases set a precedent for the appellant's entitlement to monetary benefits during the same period.

The respondent's counsel did not dispute the factual aspects but argued that the appellant did not work during the disputed period and, therefore, should not receive monetary benefits based on the principle of 'no work no pay.' However, the Court considered previous orders and rejected this argument, emphasizing that the appellant, being similarly situated, should not be deprived of benefits.

After considering the arguments and previous judgments, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant. The High Court's decision was quashed, and the appellant was granted the benefit of retirement at the age of 65 years, including all consequential monetary benefits. The Court directed the payment of arrears within six weeks, with no interest due to the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed on either party.

---