Summary
A teacher in a fully government-aided private institution sought retirement-age parity and monetary benefits after the precedent denying retirement at 65 had been overturned. The Court held that he could not be singled out from similarly situated teachers who received consequential benefits. Because he had been prevented from serving, the no-work-no-pay defence failed on these facts. Arrears were directed within six weeks, with interest excluded for the specified period of delay in appealing.
Issues
- Whether the teacher was entitled to retirement at 65 and consequential monetary benefits despite not having worked during the intervening period.
Held
- The High Court had dismissed the teacher’s appeal by relying on a Full Bench decision subsequently set aside in R.S. Sohane. The appellant was entitled to the same enhanced retirement age of 65 recognised for similarly situated teachers. (¶¶ 2.1, 4-5)
- The State had implemented relief granting similarly situated teachers the monetary benefits of service between ages 62 and 65. Teachers prevented from working despite their entitlement could not be denied those benefits through the no-work-no-pay principle; the appellant could not be singled out. (¶ 3-4)
- All consequential monetary benefits, including salary and allowance arrears as if service continued to 65, were payable. Because the appeal was substantially delayed, interest on arrears was excluded from 9 May 2017 until the present appeal was filed. (¶ 5)
Result
Appeal allowed; the impugned High Court judgment was set aside. Retirement at 65 and all consequential monetary benefits were granted, with arrears payable within six weeks. No interest was payable on the arrears for 9 May 2017 to the filing of this appeal. No order as to costs.