Allahabad High Court

2. On the other hand it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents as well as by Shri P.D. Tripathi, 2 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 that identical controversy has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.284 of 2024 (Smt. Shiv Pyari Srivastava and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) decided on 18.04.2024. Order dated 18.04.2024 reads as follows:- "1. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed alongwith delay condonation application, which constitutes sufficient cause, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the Special Appeal is hereby condoned.

2. Heard Sri Ram Yash Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1, 4 and 6 and Shri K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

3. Present Special Appeal is preferred assailing the validity of the judgement and order dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 37216 of 2014 (Smt. Shiv Pyari Srivastav and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) as well as order dated 21.04.2014 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad (respondent no.3) and to allow aforesaid Writ A No.37216 of 2014 filed by the petitioners- appellants.

4. At the very outset, Shri K.Shahi, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Smt Sarjeet Kumari Kushwaha and another Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others (SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 295 of 2024, dt. 16.4.2024), whereby, this Court has dismissed the Special Appeal with detailed observations affirming the order of learned Single Judge and as such, it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioners-appellants. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 16.4.2024 is reproduced below. "3. Heard Sri Ram Yash Maurya, learned counsel for the learned petitioners-appellants; Shri Devesh Vikram, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1, 4 and 6 and Shri K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. 3 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025

4. Present Special Appeal is preferred assailing the validity of the judgement and order dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No.37187 of 2014 (Smt. Sarjeet Kumari Kushwaha and another vs. State of U.P. and others) alongwith Writ A No.37216 of 2014 (Smt. Shiv Pyari Srivastav Retd. Head Master and 3 others vs. State of U.P. through Secy. and 5 others) as well as order dated

21.04.2014 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad (respondent no.3) and to allow aforesaid Writ A No.37187 of 2014 filed by the petitioners-appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submits that the order passed by learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law as he has not considered the fact that the petitioners retired on 30.6.2013 after completing the age of 62 years and under Section 9 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 and Nagar Mahapalika Employee Retirement Salary and Gratuity Rules, 1963 they are entitled for the gratuity after retirement at the age of 62 years. Learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon Government order dated 23.11.1994, which is not applicable on the petitioners-appellants as they are the teachers of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and not Basic Education Board. The aforesaid Government order is applicable only to the teachers, who are teachers or employees of the Basic Education Board. Learned Single Judge had not considered the fact that the petitioners had no knowledge about the Government order dated 23.11.1994. Neither, the respondent authorities have sent the same to the petitioners for choosing their option nor the petitioners have filled up the option. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 21.4.2014 has not considered the fact that prior to their retirement, the respondent authorities have paid gratuity to several persons. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

6. Shri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Parishad has vehemently opposed the appeal and submits that as per the Government order, the teachers were given option to continue in service beyond the normal period of retirement. The extension of service was permitted from 58 years to 60 years and thereafter upto 62 years but with denial of the benefit of gratuity. The appellant-petitioners have 4 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 failed to provide the option and continued to serve in the department upto 62 years. He submits that while passing the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has considered relevant Government Orders and rejected the claim of petitioners and as such, no interference is required and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the petitioners-appellants were working as Head Master and Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Nagar Mahapalika. Finally, they had retired from the service on

30.06.2013 at the age of 62 years. Once the third respondent vide order dated 21.04.2014 had refused to provide the benefit of gratuity then they had filed the said writ petition assailing the validity of the order dated 21.04.2014 and requesting to direct the respondent authority to pay the retiral benefit including gratuity and insurance alongwith 18% interest to them. Finally, learned Single Judge had proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with following observations:- "2. Both writ petitions are arising out of similar facts, therefore, with the consent of counsel for parties, are decided by a common judgment.

3. It is not under dispute that all petitioners have served up to 62 years of their age i.e. the extended age of retirement and their respective claim for gratuity was rejected.

4. This is second round of litigation. In earlier round, petitioners have approached this Court by way of different writ petitions, which was disposed of by separate order with direction to concerned respondent to pass an order in regard to their respective claim of gratuity.

5. The concerned respondent by different impugned orders, which are similarly worded, has rejected respective claim of gratuity. The issue involved is the interpretation of two G.Os. which are dated 04 February, 2004 and 23 November, 1994. The relevant part of is reproduced hereinafter:- impugned order "उलेखनीय है िक ग्रेच्युटी के सम्बन्ध में शासन द्वारा िनगर्त शासनादेश संख्या 636915-5-93-55/89 िशक्षा (5) अनुभाग लखनऊ िदनांक 23 नवम्बर 1994 5 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 में यह उबैख है िक सिचव उत्तर प्रदेश बेिसक िशक्षा पिरषद इलाहाबाद के पत्राक बै०िश०५०/पेशन 17066-92-93 िदनांक 30.10.92 के संदभर् में मुझे यह कहने का िनदेर्श हुआ है िक उत्तर प्रदेश बेिसक िशक्षा पिरषद के अध्यापकों एवं िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों को माध्यिमक िशक्षकों की भांित 58 वषर् की आयु पर सेवा िनवृत्त होने का िवकल्प देने की िस्थत में ग्रेच्युटी की सुिवधा िदये जाने की मांग की है। सम्यक िवचारोपरांत श्री राज्यपाल यह आदेश प्रदान करते है िक िजस प्रकार राज्य सहायता प्राप्त माध्यिमक िवद्यालयों के िशक्षकों को इस वषर् की आयु पर सेवा िनवृत्त होने का िवकल्प देने पर राजकीय कमर्चािरयों की भांित ग्रेच्युटी की सुिवधा अनुमन्य है उसी प्रकार उ०प्र० बेिसक िशक्षा पिरषद के अध्यापकों एवं िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों, सहायता प्राप्त गैर सरकारी माध्यिमक िवद्यालयों के िशक्षणेतर कमर्चािरयों, तथा सहायता प्राप्स गैर सरकारी जूिनयर हाई स्कू लों िशक्षकों एवं िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों, की 58 वषर् की आयु में सेवा िनवृत्त होने की दशा में ग्रेच्युटी की सुिवधा प्रदान की जाये। यह सुिवधा उन्ही अध्यापकों एवं कमर्चािरयों को अनुमन्य होगी, जो 8 वषर् की आयु पर सेवा िनवृत्त होने का िवकल्प िनधार्िरत प्रपत्र पर प्रस्तुत करेंगे। यह सुिवधा उपरोक विणत सभी िशक्षको कमर्चािरयों पर इन आदेशों के जारी होने की ितिथ से लागू होगी। मुझे यह भी कहना है की प्रश्नगत लाभ उन्ही अध्यापकों कमर्चािरयों को अनुमन्य होगा जो सलक्ष िनधार्िरत प्रपत्र पर शासनादेश जारी होने के िदनांक से 90 िदन के अन्दर दो प्रितयों में सस्था के माध्यम से पेंशन स्वीकृ त करने वाले अिधकारी के पास अपना िवकल्प पत्र प्रेिषत करेंगे। िनधार्िरत ितिथ तक िवकल्प पत्र न प्रस्तुत िकये जाने पर यह स्वतः मान िलया जायेगा िक सम्बिन्धत अध्यापक था कमर्चारी इस राजाज्ञा में स्वीकृ त सुिवधा का लाभ प्राप्त नहीं करना चाहता। एक बार प्रस्तुत िकया गया िवकल्प अिन्तम तथा अपिरवतर्नीय होगा। बेिसक िशक्षा पिरषद िशक्षक िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों सहायता प्राप्त गैर सरकारी जूिनयर हाई स्कू लों के िशक्षक । िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों, तथा सहायता प्राप्त गैर सरकारी उच्चतर माध्यिमक िवद्यालयों के िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों के िवकल्प की पहली प्रित पेंशन स्वीकृ ता अिधकारी के प्रितहस्ताक्षरों के बाद उसकी सेवा पुिस्तका में िचपकायी जायेगी। दूसरी प्रित पेंशन स्वीकतार् अिधकारी के प्रितहस्ताक्षरी के बाद उससे अगले उच्च अिधकारी के कायार्लय में सुरिक्षत रखी जायेगी। यह आदेश िवत्त िवभाग की उनके अ०शा० सं० ई०-11/3483/-94 िदनांक 23 नवम्बर 1994 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमित से िनगर्त िकये जा रहे है। उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है िक याची द्वारा संविमत शासनादेश संख्या 289/796-04- 28(5) 2004 िदनांक 4 फरवरी 2004 सेवा िनवृत्त हेतु अिधवषर्ता आयु से सम्बिन्धत है न िक ग्रच्युटी से। ग्रेच्युटी से सम्बिन्धत शासनादेश संख्या 6369/15-5-93-55/89 िशक्षा (5) अनुभाग लखनऊ िदनांक 23 नवम्बर 1994 में िनिहत प्रािवधानानुसार 58 वषर् की आयु पर सेवािनवृत्त का िवकल्प िलए जाने पर याची शासनादेश िदनांक 04 फरवरी 2004 में िनिहत व्यवस्थानुसार 60 वषर् की अिधवषर्ता आयु पर सेवािनवृत्त होती तो ग्रेच्युटी पाने हेतु अहं होती िकन्तु याची द्वारा शासनादेश िदनांक 23 नवम्बर 1994 में िनिहत प्रािवधानानुसार िवकल्प का चुनाव नहीं िकया गया और 62 वषर् की अिधवषर्ता आयु पूणर् करने के उपरान्त िदनांक 30.6.2013 को सेवािनवृत्त हुई, िजसके कारण अपर िनदेशक कोषागार एवं पेन्शन इलाहाबाद मण्डल इलाहाबाद द्वारा याची के पेंशन स्वीकृ त आदेश िदनांक 26.10.13 में पेंशन स्वीकृ ित के साथ ग्रेच्युटी हेतु अहर् न होने के कारण प्रेच्युटी की स्वीकृ ित नहीं की गयी। याची की बीमा की धनरािश के सम्बन्ध में िवत्त एवं लेखािधकारी बेिसक िशक्षा इलाहाबाद 6 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 (आहरण िवतरण अिधकारी द्वारा बताया गया िक कायार्लय के पत्रांक सं0 653 िदनाक 06.06.2013 द्वारा प्रबन्धक पेंशन एवं सामूिहक बीमा भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम, मण्डल कायार्लय जीवन प्रकाश भवन, िसिवल लाइन्स इलाहाबाद को प्रेिषत िकया जा चुका है। अद्याविध स्वीकृ त आदेश व धनरािश प्रास नहीं हुआ है, स्वीकृ ित आदेश व धननािश प्राप्त होते ही भुगतान कर िदया जायेगा। उपरोकानुसार याची श्रीमती िशव प्यारी श्रीवास्तव का प्रत्यावेदन एतद्द्वारा िनस्तािरत िकया जाता है। "

6. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in terms of circular of 04 February, 2004, petitioners are entitled for gratuity since he is entitled for all benefits are accrued even after extension of service as well as he has placed reliance on other government order that petitioners? services were earlier in other department and they were absorbed in present department.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned order and submitted that G.O. dated 04 February, 2004 has only provided extension of age of retirement and it does not confer any right of gratuity to employees who retired at the age of 62 years.

8. He further submitted that in regard to other G.O. dated 23 November, 1994, it is evident that since petitioners? have opted to work till the age of 62 year, therefore, they have foregone the right of gratuity and there is no ambiguity in interpretation.

9. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.

10. In the above factual and legal background, this Court has to consider interpretation of above referred G.Os. dated 04 February, 2004 and 23 November, 1994. According to G.O. of 23 November, 1994, in a case where an employee opt to work till the maximum age of retirement i.e. up to 62 years, he has to forego his right of gratuity and will be entitled for pension only.

11. I have also carefully perused the G.O. dated 04 February, 2004 and I have found merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondent that the said G.O. is in regard to extension of age of retirement only and it does not co-relate or extend any right to petitioners for gratuity even working till age of 62 years i.e extended date of retirement. 7 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025

12. I have also carefully perused the impugned order as reproduced in previous paragraphs wherein concerned respondent has taken the same interpretation as discussed above. So far as, another G.O. is concerned, I do not find that petitioners will have any case on basis of said G.O., which was related only to an effect that petitioners were absorbed in the present service though they were earlier working in other service.

13. Therefore, petitioners are failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which is based on correct interpretation of concerned Government Orders, accordingly, I do not find any case for interference in impugned order, therefore, these writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed. "

8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we find that learned Single Judge has appreciated the record and material, as has been placed and the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

9. In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed."

5. Considering the judgment and order dated 16.4.2024, we do not find any good ground to take a different view. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed in terms of Smt Sarjeet Kumari Kushwaha (supra). "

3. After going through the prayers made in the present writ petition, the Court is more than satisfied that identical controversy has already been dealt with in the aforesaid Special Appeal and the Special Appeal was dismissed.

4. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is also dismissed in 8 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 view of the law laid down in the case of Smt. Shiv Pyari Srivastava (Supra). (Prakash Padia,J.) November 18, 2025 Swati

2. On the other hand it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents as well as by Shri P.D. Tripathi, 2 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 that identical controversy has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.284 of 2024 (Smt. Shiv Pyari Srivastava and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) decided on 18.04.2024. Order dated 18.04.2024 reads as follows:- "1. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed alongwith delay condonation application, which constitutes sufficient cause, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the Special Appeal is hereby condoned.

2. Heard Sri Ram Yash Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1, 4 and 6 and Shri K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

3. Present Special Appeal is preferred assailing the validity of the judgement and order dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 37216 of 2014 (Smt. Shiv Pyari Srivastav and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) as well as order dated 21.04.2014 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad (respondent no.3) and to allow aforesaid Writ A No.37216 of 2014 filed by the petitioners- appellants.

4. At the very outset, Shri K.Shahi, learned counsel for the contesting-respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Smt Sarjeet Kumari Kushwaha and another Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others (SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 295 of 2024, dt. 16.4.2024), whereby, this Court has dismissed the Special Appeal with detailed observations affirming the order of learned Single Judge and as such, it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioners-appellants. For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 16.4.2024 is reproduced below. "3. Heard Sri Ram Yash Maurya, learned counsel for the learned petitioners-appellants; Shri Devesh Vikram, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.1, 4 and 6 and Shri K. Shahi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. 3 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025

4. Present Special Appeal is preferred assailing the validity of the judgement and order dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No.37187 of 2014 (Smt. Sarjeet Kumari Kushwaha and another vs. State of U.P. and others) alongwith Writ A No.37216 of 2014 (Smt. Shiv Pyari Srivastav Retd. Head Master and 3 others vs. State of U.P. through Secy. and 5 others) as well as order dated

21.04.2014 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad (respondent no.3) and to allow aforesaid Writ A No.37187 of 2014 filed by the petitioners-appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants submits that the order passed by learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law as he has not considered the fact that the petitioners retired on 30.6.2013 after completing the age of 62 years and under Section 9 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 and Nagar Mahapalika Employee Retirement Salary and Gratuity Rules, 1963 they are entitled for the gratuity after retirement at the age of 62 years. Learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon Government order dated 23.11.1994, which is not applicable on the petitioners-appellants as they are the teachers of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and not Basic Education Board. The aforesaid Government order is applicable only to the teachers, who are teachers or employees of the Basic Education Board. Learned Single Judge had not considered the fact that the petitioners had no knowledge about the Government order dated 23.11.1994. Neither, the respondent authorities have sent the same to the petitioners for choosing their option nor the petitioners have filled up the option. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 21.4.2014 has not considered the fact that prior to their retirement, the respondent authorities have paid gratuity to several persons. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

6. Shri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Parishad has vehemently opposed the appeal and submits that as per the Government order, the teachers were given option to continue in service beyond the normal period of retirement. The extension of service was permitted from 58 years to 60 years and thereafter upto 62 years but with denial of the benefit of gratuity. The appellant-petitioners have 4 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 failed to provide the option and continued to serve in the department upto 62 years. He submits that while passing the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has considered relevant Government Orders and rejected the claim of petitioners and as such, no interference is required and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the petitioners-appellants were working as Head Master and Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Nagar Mahapalika. Finally, they had retired from the service on

30.06.2013 at the age of 62 years. Once the third respondent vide order dated 21.04.2014 had refused to provide the benefit of gratuity then they had filed the said writ petition assailing the validity of the order dated 21.04.2014 and requesting to direct the respondent authority to pay the retiral benefit including gratuity and insurance alongwith 18% interest to them. Finally, learned Single Judge had proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with following observations:- "2. Both writ petitions are arising out of similar facts, therefore, with the consent of counsel for parties, are decided by a common judgment.

3. It is not under dispute that all petitioners have served up to 62 years of their age i.e. the extended age of retirement and their respective claim for gratuity was rejected.

4. This is second round of litigation. In earlier round, petitioners have approached this Court by way of different writ petitions, which was disposed of by separate order with direction to concerned respondent to pass an order in regard to their respective claim of gratuity.

5. The concerned respondent by different impugned orders, which are similarly worded, has rejected respective claim of gratuity. The issue involved is the interpretation of two G.Os. which are dated 04 February, 2004 and 23 November, 1994. The relevant part of is reproduced hereinafter:- impugned order "उलेखनीय है िक ग्रेच्युटी के सम्बन्ध में शासन द्वारा िनगर्त शासनादेश संख्या 636915-5-93-55/89 िशक्षा (5) अनुभाग लखनऊ िदनांक 23 नवम्बर 1994 5 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 में यह उबैख है िक सिचव उत्तर प्रदेश बेिसक िशक्षा पिरषद इलाहाबाद के पत्राक बै०िश०५०/पेशन 17066-92-93 िदनांक 30.10.92 के संदभर् में मुझे यह कहने का िनदेर्श हुआ है िक उत्तर प्रदेश बेिसक िशक्षा पिरषद के अध्यापकों एवं िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों को माध्यिमक िशक्षकों की भांित 58 वषर् की आयु पर सेवा िनवृत्त होने का िवकल्प देने की िस्थत में ग्रेच्युटी की सुिवधा िदये जाने की मांग की है। सम्यक िवचारोपरांत श्री राज्यपाल यह आदेश प्रदान करते है िक िजस प्रकार राज्य सहायता प्राप्त माध्यिमक िवद्यालयों के िशक्षकों को इस वषर् की आयु पर सेवा िनवृत्त होने का िवकल्प देने पर राजकीय कमर्चािरयों की भांित ग्रेच्युटी की सुिवधा अनुमन्य है उसी प्रकार उ०प्र० बेिसक िशक्षा पिरषद के अध्यापकों एवं िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों, सहायता प्राप्त गैर सरकारी माध्यिमक िवद्यालयों के िशक्षणेतर कमर्चािरयों, तथा सहायता प्राप्स गैर सरकारी जूिनयर हाई स्कू लों िशक्षकों एवं िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों, की 58 वषर् की आयु में सेवा िनवृत्त होने की दशा में ग्रेच्युटी की सुिवधा प्रदान की जाये। यह सुिवधा उन्ही अध्यापकों एवं कमर्चािरयों को अनुमन्य होगी, जो 8 वषर् की आयु पर सेवा िनवृत्त होने का िवकल्प िनधार्िरत प्रपत्र पर प्रस्तुत करेंगे। यह सुिवधा उपरोक विणत सभी िशक्षको कमर्चािरयों पर इन आदेशों के जारी होने की ितिथ से लागू होगी। मुझे यह भी कहना है की प्रश्नगत लाभ उन्ही अध्यापकों कमर्चािरयों को अनुमन्य होगा जो सलक्ष िनधार्िरत प्रपत्र पर शासनादेश जारी होने के िदनांक से 90 िदन के अन्दर दो प्रितयों में सस्था के माध्यम से पेंशन स्वीकृ त करने वाले अिधकारी के पास अपना िवकल्प पत्र प्रेिषत करेंगे। िनधार्िरत ितिथ तक िवकल्प पत्र न प्रस्तुत िकये जाने पर यह स्वतः मान िलया जायेगा िक सम्बिन्धत अध्यापक था कमर्चारी इस राजाज्ञा में स्वीकृ त सुिवधा का लाभ प्राप्त नहीं करना चाहता। एक बार प्रस्तुत िकया गया िवकल्प अिन्तम तथा अपिरवतर्नीय होगा। बेिसक िशक्षा पिरषद िशक्षक िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों सहायता प्राप्त गैर सरकारी जूिनयर हाई स्कू लों के िशक्षक । िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों, तथा सहायता प्राप्त गैर सरकारी उच्चतर माध्यिमक िवद्यालयों के िशक्षणेत्तर कमर्चािरयों के िवकल्प की पहली प्रित पेंशन स्वीकृ ता अिधकारी के प्रितहस्ताक्षरों के बाद उसकी सेवा पुिस्तका में िचपकायी जायेगी। दूसरी प्रित पेंशन स्वीकतार् अिधकारी के प्रितहस्ताक्षरी के बाद उससे अगले उच्च अिधकारी के कायार्लय में सुरिक्षत रखी जायेगी। यह आदेश िवत्त िवभाग की उनके अ०शा० सं० ई०-11/3483/-94 िदनांक 23 नवम्बर 1994 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमित से िनगर्त िकये जा रहे है। उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है िक याची द्वारा संविमत शासनादेश संख्या 289/796-04- 28(5) 2004 िदनांक 4 फरवरी 2004 सेवा िनवृत्त हेतु अिधवषर्ता आयु से सम्बिन्धत है न िक ग्रच्युटी से। ग्रेच्युटी से सम्बिन्धत शासनादेश संख्या 6369/15-5-93-55/89 िशक्षा (5) अनुभाग लखनऊ िदनांक 23 नवम्बर 1994 में िनिहत प्रािवधानानुसार 58 वषर् की आयु पर सेवािनवृत्त का िवकल्प िलए जाने पर याची शासनादेश िदनांक 04 फरवरी 2004 में िनिहत व्यवस्थानुसार 60 वषर् की अिधवषर्ता आयु पर सेवािनवृत्त होती तो ग्रेच्युटी पाने हेतु अहं होती िकन्तु याची द्वारा शासनादेश िदनांक 23 नवम्बर 1994 में िनिहत प्रािवधानानुसार िवकल्प का चुनाव नहीं िकया गया और 62 वषर् की अिधवषर्ता आयु पूणर् करने के उपरान्त िदनांक 30.6.2013 को सेवािनवृत्त हुई, िजसके कारण अपर िनदेशक कोषागार एवं पेन्शन इलाहाबाद मण्डल इलाहाबाद द्वारा याची के पेंशन स्वीकृ त आदेश िदनांक 26.10.13 में पेंशन स्वीकृ ित के साथ ग्रेच्युटी हेतु अहर् न होने के कारण प्रेच्युटी की स्वीकृ ित नहीं की गयी। याची की बीमा की धनरािश के सम्बन्ध में िवत्त एवं लेखािधकारी बेिसक िशक्षा इलाहाबाद 6 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 (आहरण िवतरण अिधकारी द्वारा बताया गया िक कायार्लय के पत्रांक सं0 653 िदनाक 06.06.2013 द्वारा प्रबन्धक पेंशन एवं सामूिहक बीमा भारतीय जीवन बीमा िनगम, मण्डल कायार्लय जीवन प्रकाश भवन, िसिवल लाइन्स इलाहाबाद को प्रेिषत िकया जा चुका है। अद्याविध स्वीकृ त आदेश व धनरािश प्रास नहीं हुआ है, स्वीकृ ित आदेश व धननािश प्राप्त होते ही भुगतान कर िदया जायेगा। उपरोकानुसार याची श्रीमती िशव प्यारी श्रीवास्तव का प्रत्यावेदन एतद्द्वारा िनस्तािरत िकया जाता है। "

6. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in terms of circular of 04 February, 2004, petitioners are entitled for gratuity since he is entitled for all benefits are accrued even after extension of service as well as he has placed reliance on other government order that petitioners? services were earlier in other department and they were absorbed in present department.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the impugned order and submitted that G.O. dated 04 February, 2004 has only provided extension of age of retirement and it does not confer any right of gratuity to employees who retired at the age of 62 years.

8. He further submitted that in regard to other G.O. dated 23 November, 1994, it is evident that since petitioners? have opted to work till the age of 62 year, therefore, they have foregone the right of gratuity and there is no ambiguity in interpretation.

9. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.

10. In the above factual and legal background, this Court has to consider interpretation of above referred G.Os. dated 04 February, 2004 and 23 November, 1994. According to G.O. of 23 November, 1994, in a case where an employee opt to work till the maximum age of retirement i.e. up to 62 years, he has to forego his right of gratuity and will be entitled for pension only.

11. I have also carefully perused the G.O. dated 04 February, 2004 and I have found merit in the argument of learned counsel for respondent that the said G.O. is in regard to extension of age of retirement only and it does not co-relate or extend any right to petitioners for gratuity even working till age of 62 years i.e extended date of retirement. 7 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025

12. I have also carefully perused the impugned order as reproduced in previous paragraphs wherein concerned respondent has taken the same interpretation as discussed above. So far as, another G.O. is concerned, I do not find that petitioners will have any case on basis of said G.O., which was related only to an effect that petitioners were absorbed in the present service though they were earlier working in other service.

13. Therefore, petitioners are failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order which is based on correct interpretation of concerned Government Orders, accordingly, I do not find any case for interference in impugned order, therefore, these writ petitions are accordingly, dismissed. "

8. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we find that learned Single Judge has appreciated the record and material, as has been placed and the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

9. In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed."

5. Considering the judgment and order dated 16.4.2024, we do not find any good ground to take a different view. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed in terms of Smt Sarjeet Kumari Kushwaha (supra). "

3. After going through the prayers made in the present writ petition, the Court is more than satisfied that identical controversy has already been dealt with in the aforesaid Special Appeal and the Special Appeal was dismissed.

4. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is also dismissed in 8 WRIA No. 17277 of 2025 view of the law laid down in the case of Smt. Shiv Pyari Srivastava (Supra). (Prakash Padia,J.) November 18, 2025 Swati