NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Supreme Court Defines 'Teacher' Inclusively: Sports Officers/PTIs at Par with Teachers for Retirement Benefits

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision that redefines the scope of the term 'teacher' within educational institutions, the Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgement (2023 INSC 1067), has significantly impacted the retirement age of sports officers and physical training instructors (PTIs). The apex court, in its judgement, categorically stated that individuals in these roles at Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya are to be treated on par with teachers, thereby aligning their retirement age with that of other academic staff.

The judgement came in response to an appeal filed by a sports officer/PTI, challenging the earlier decision by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had set his retirement age at 60 years, as opposed to 62 years, which is the norm for teachers. The Supreme Court's decision critically analyzed the definitions under the J.N.K.V.V. Act and its Statutes, with a broader interpretation of who qualifies as a 'teacher.'

In a key observation, the Court noted, "The definition being inclusive in nature would have to be read expansively." This statement underscores the Court's approach in acknowledging the diverse roles that contribute to education beyond conventional classroom teaching.

The Court further justified its decision by referencing the precedent set in P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University, where a similar position was recognized as that of a 'teacher.' The apex court drew parallels between the definitions of a 'teacher' in the A.P. Act and the J.N.K.V.V. Act, leading to a similar expansive interpretation.

This decision marks a significant step in acknowledging the varied roles that educational professionals play in the development of students. The ruling highlights the Court's understanding of the evolving nature of educational roles and the necessity to align legal definitions with contemporary educational practices.

Date of Decision: 13th December 2023

P.C. MODI VS THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER

 

Latest Legal News