ORDER 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. 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' contained in Statute 32 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act. 1963, has held that it cannot be construed liberally to include a Sports Officer and on that count has denied the benefit of the extended age of superannuation as prescribed for teachers of the petitioner therein, who was a Sports Officer. 10. 1963, has held that it cannot be construed liberally to include a Sports Officer and on that count has denied the benefit of the extended age of superannuation as prescribed for teachers of the petitioner therein, who was a Sports Officer. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the Division Bench of his Court in the case of P.C Modi (supra) has rightly considered the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra) and Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra) and we fully agree with the view taken therein. We are also of the considered opinion that as the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra) having explained the previous judgment in the case of R. S. Ramamohan Rao (supra) and having clarified that it was rendered in the light of the particular files in issue, the same was tightly considered by the Division Bench in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra) and, therefore, the decision in the case of P.C Modi (supra) does not require to be reconsidered or referred to a larger Bench as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are also of the opinion that there is no conflict between the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court. 11. Besides that, it appears that the judgment of the apex Court in P.S. Ramamohan Rao (supra) was rendered on 31.7.1997 by a Bench consisting of two Hon'ble Judges, whereas the judgment in State of M.P v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra) was rendered later i.e. on 28.7.2009, by a Bench consisting of three Hon 'ble Judges. It is a settled legal position that where there is a conflict of opinion between two decisions of the apex Court rendered by the Benches of equal strength, the later decision shall prevail. Reference may be made to the judgment of the apex Court rendered in Dalhir Singh v. State of U.P. (2004) 5 SCC 334 , wherein the Supreme Court in para 11 has approved the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, relying upon the later Judgment where the earlier judgment was in conflict with the later one. Thus. the judgment rendered in Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), which was decided on 28 7.2009, will prevail. Thus. the judgment rendered in Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), which was decided on 28 7.2009, will prevail. Besides that the judgment in Stale of U.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra) is of larger Bench as it was headed by three Hon'ble Judges whereas, the judgment in P.S. Ramamohan Rao v. A.P Agricultural University and another (supra) was headed by two Hon'ble Judges. 12. In the light of the above, we do not find any error in the judgment/order of the learned Single Judge. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was permitted to continue to work till the age of 61 years and 3 months and, therefore, the respondents be directed not to recover the salary already paid to the appellant for the period of service rendered by him beyond the age of 60 years. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the University fairly submits that the salary already paid to the appellant for the period for which he has worked will not be recovered by the University. 14. In view of the above, we do not find ant merit in the appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, it is provided that the salary and other benefits already paid to the appellant for the period of service rendered by him beyond the age of 60 years till his continuance shall not be recovered from him. However, for all other purposes, such as fixation of pension and post retiral benefits etc., the appellant would be deemed to have retired on attaining the age of 60 years. 15. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands dismissed.