High Court · 2025

passed by this Court in Smt. Satyawati Verma Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr, 1998 (1) A.W.C. 681.

4. Now the petitioner has filed this writ petition stating that once this Court has held that the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1921’) are applicable to the teachers of the college managed by the Electricity Board and since she was allowed to work up to age of 60 years, therefore, she is entitled for gratuity also. However, her claim was rejected by a reasoned order 2 dated 8.12.2008 that her services were not covered with the relevant Government Order dated 4.2.2004. The said order is impugned in present case. Relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter:- उपरोʦ✍ वि(cid:8)(cid:8)ेचनानुसार य룋 स्प꽞쇘 룋鏏롫 वि(cid:20) याच砧鲰 स्(cid:8)दे斔瞼 (cid:20)ु मार砧鲰 वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद (cid:20)न्या विदनां(cid:20) २०० (cid:20)ो से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृ꽏룴 룋ुय砧鲰 룋鏏롫脷鏍 मा० उ瞹滌 न्यायालय (cid:20)े आदे斔瞼 विदनां(cid:20) १०. २००ʭᑎ सि손펛सम尝尠 ्ቚति⓾䁓प्ቌ砧鲰 उ०्ቚ० राज्य वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 उत्पादन विनगम लिलविमटेᯁᮘ 룋鏏롫 म尝尠 लिल瞎敎 आदे斔瞼 पारिर⓾䁓 वि(cid:20)ये गये 룋᭘ᮡ उʦ✍ "३- इण्टर (cid:20)ाले손펛 (cid:20)ासिसमपुर पा(cid:8)र 룋ाउस अल砧鲰ग敟溊 म尝尠 से(cid:8)ा (cid:20)र⓾䁓े 룋ुये ३०.०६. ०- याच砧鲰 (cid:20)ो से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴(cid:20) देय(cid:20)롛ꖆ (cid:20)े भुग⓾䁓ान (cid:20)े आदे斔瞼 (cid:20)ा मुख्य अं斔瞼 विनम्न(cid:8)⓾䁓 룋鏏롫 脷鏍:- In the case of Smt. Satyuavati Verma Vs. U.P. State Electricity board 1998(1) A.W.C. 681 this Court in similar facts has held that the age of retirement of teachers even in schools and colleges run by the Electricity board would be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and as such they would retire at the age of 60 years, in such view of the matter the petitioner would also be entitled to retire at the age of 60 years and not at 58 years. As such the impugned order dated 27.06.2001 is quashed. The petitioner who has already worked and has been paid salary till 30.06.2004 has rightly been done so. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment if her retrial dues as if she had been in service till 30.06.2004. As such retrial dues shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner in accordance with law forthwith. उपरोʦ✍ आदे斔瞼 भ砧鲰 मा० उ瞹滌 न्यायालय ्ቛारा इस ⓾䁓थ्य (cid:20)ा सं्ሺान ले⓾䁓े 룋ुये वि(cid:20) संदቝኌभ⓾䁓 वि(cid:8)्ቕालय उ०्ቚ० माध्यविम(cid:20) शि斔瞼्ቌा अतिGविनयम १९२१ से अच्छाविद⓾䁓 룋᭘ᮡ विनदP斔瞼 विदये याच砧鲰 (cid:20)౮ᕝ से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴 (cid:20)౮ᕝ आयु ५숶꿹 (cid:8)षN से ब敟溊ा(cid:20)र ६० (cid:8)षN वि(cid:20)ये 손펛ाने (cid:20)े गये 룋鏏롫脷鏍 ति⓾䁓शिQ १० . . ० २०० (cid:20)े ्ቚावि(cid:8)Gान लागू Qे परन्⓾䁓ु 손펛鏏롫सा उपर उ्ቤे푶 वि(cid:20)या गया 룋鏏롫 उʦ✍ ्ቚावि(cid:8)Gान मा湭斉 अ斔瞼ास(cid:20)౮ᕝय स룋ाय⓾䁓ा ्ቚा्቎ माध्यविम(cid:20) वि(cid:8)्ቕालय롛ꖆ म尝尠 斔瞼ासन ्ቛारा सृसि손펛⓾䁓 पद롛ꖆ पर लागू 룋ोगा वि(cid:20)न्⓾䁓ु रिरट यातिच(cid:20)ा म尝尠 याच砧鲰 ्ቛारा इस ⓾䁓थ्य (cid:20)ो सामने न룋⸱⸖ लाया गया脷鏍 मा० उ瞹滌 न्यायालय ्ቛारा उपर롛ꖆʦ✍ आदे斔瞼 पारिर⓾䁓 वि(cid:20)ये 손펛ाने (cid:20)౮ᕝ २००ʭᑎ (cid:20)े पू(cid:8)N से 룋砧鲰 斔瞼ासनादे斔瞼 विदनां(cid:20)  . २ . याच砧鲰 ्ቛारा अ(cid:8)मानना यातिच(cid:20)ा (cid:20)े साQ ्ቚस्⓾䁓ु⓾䁓 ्ቚत्या(cid:8)ेदन म尝尠 इस विबन्दु (cid:20)ो अलग से 손펛ोड़(cid:20)र ६२ (cid:8)षN पर से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴 वि(cid:8)षय(cid:20) उʦ✍ 斔瞼ासनादे斔瞼 विदनां(cid:20)  . २ . २०० सि손펛स(cid:20)ा लाभ उसे अनुमन्य न룋砧鲰 룋鏏롫 (cid:20)े आGार पर से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴(cid:20) लाभ롛ꖆ (cid:20)౮ᕝ गणना (cid:20)౮ᕝ मांग (cid:20)౮ᕝ गय砧鲰 룋᭘ᮡ उपरोʦ✍ वि(cid:8)(cid:8)ेचनानुसार याच砧鲰 (cid:20)ो ६२ (cid:8)षN (cid:20)౮ᕝ से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴 आयु पर से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴(cid:20) लाभ (cid:20)౮ᕝ अनुमन्य⓾䁓ा विनयमानुसार देय न룋⸱⸖ 룋᭘ᮡ साQ 룋砧鲰 चू ंवि(cid:20) वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद (cid:20)न्या इण्टर (cid:20)ाले손펛 (cid:20)ासिसमपुर पा(cid:8)र 룋ाउस अल砧鲰ग敟溊 वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद ्ቛारा संचालिल⓾䁓 瞎敎(cid:8)ं वि(cid:8)꽏룴 पोविष⓾䁓 वि(cid:8)्ቕालय 룋鏏롫 अ⓾䁓劉䧀 उʦ✍ वि(cid:8)्ቕालय롛ꖆ (cid:20)౮ᕝ (cid:20)मNचारिरय롛ꖆ (cid:20)े से(cid:8)ा संबंG砧鲰 भुग⓾䁓ान (cid:20)౮ᕝ (cid:20)ायN(cid:8)ा룋砧鲰 स्(cid:8)यं वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद ्ቛारा लागू - विनयम롛ꖆ आविद (cid:20)े अनुसार वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद ्ቛारा 룋砧鲰 (cid:20)౮ᕝ 손펛ान砧鲰 룋᭘ᮡ 斔瞼ासनादे斔瞼 संख्या १२ʭᑎ - - 숶꿹 - २०० २००३ ट砧鲰०स砧鲰० विदनां(cid:20)  फर(cid:8)र砧鲰 २०० (cid:20)े ्ቚावि(cid:8)Gान याच砧鲰 (cid:20)े संबंG म尝尠 ्ቚभा(cid:8)砧鲰 न룋⸱⸖ 룋ोगा脷鏍 / १६ विनयम / १५ उपयु Nʦ✍ (cid:8)ቝኌण⓾䁓 ቝኌस्Qति⓾䁓 (cid:20)े ्ቚ(cid:20)ा斔瞼 म尝尠 瞎敎⓾䁓द्ቛारा ्ቦ砧鲰म⓾䁓砧鲰 स्(cid:8)दे斔瞼 (cid:20)ु मार砧鲰 (cid:20)ा ्ቚत्या(cid:8)ेदन विदनां(cid:20) १숶꿹.०२. २००숶꿹 विनस्⓾䁓ारिर⓾䁓 वि(cid:20)या 손펛ा⓾䁓ा 룋鏏롫脷鏍" 3 (Emphasis supplied)

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the judgement passed in Smt. Satyawati Verma (Supra) that provisions of Act, of 1921 were held to be applicable in respect of recognized institution of U.P. Electricity Board, therefore, benefits granted to the teachers of College governed under the Act of 1921 were also applicable to the petitioner and therefore, prayed that impugned order be set aside.

6. Per Contra learned Additional Chief Standing Council has supported the impugned order and refers Government Order dated 4.2.2004, whereby the retirement age was increased from 60 to 62 years, subject to certain conditions that, it was applicable only on non-government aided secondary schools as well as only to the teachers working against sanctioned post and he refers relevant part of the impugned order that in present case aforesaid both conditions were not fulfilled, therefore, claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. It is not disputed that college concerned was managed by the U. P. Electricity Board and services of the petitioner was governed by The Electricity Service Commission Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulation 1978.

9. The Government Order dated 4.2.2004 was neither adopted by the Electricity Board nor an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit any option as required, therefore, there is force in the argument of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that Government Order dated 4.2.2004 was not applicable in the case of petitioner.

10. In the above background, there are certain other factors which are adverse to his claim that petitioner has taken some other benefits including free residential accommodation and electricity at subsidised rates, which were not extended to teachers of other aided colleges. 4

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Smt. Satyawati Verma (Supra). However, Court is of the view that it was only in regard to age of retirement being extended from 58 or 60 years. No further consideration was made as to whether what would be the effect of any prior Government Order as to whether it would be automatically applicable or not.

12. The petitioner was allowed to work till the age of 60 years by an interim order dated 24.5.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.26209 of 2001. Said writ petition was finally allowed vide order dated 10.4.2007. However, petitioner has neither filed any amendment nor claimed that she may be allowed to work till the age of 62 years or to give any option or to give advantage of said G.O. dated 4.2.2004 issued much prior to disposal of the writ petition. For reference order dated 10.4.2007 passed in the aforesaid writ petition is reproduced hereinafter: “The petitioner was a teacher in the Inter college run by the respondent-UP.Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). As per the regulations of the Corporation, the age of retirement of its employees was 58 years at the relevant time. The college was recognized by the Board under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Since the age of retirement under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was enhanced from 58 to 60 years, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the order dated 27.6.2001 whereby she was informed that she would be retiring on 30.6.202 on attaining the age of 58 years. A further prayer has been made that the petitioner may be permitted to continue to work as teacher till the age of 60 years and be paid her regular salary. By means of the interim order dated 24.5.2002 the petitioner was permitted to continue to work till the age of 60 years and as such she has been in service as teacher till 30.0.2004 and has also been paid her salary. In the case of Smt. Sarywari Verma vs. U.P.State Electricity Board 1998(1) A.W.C.681 this Court, in similar facts, has held that the age of retirement of teachers even in schools and colleges run by the Electricity Board would be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate 5 Education Act, 1921 and as such they would retire at the age of 60 years. In such view of the matter the petitioner would also be entitled to retire at the age of 60 years, and not at 58 years. As such the impugned order dated 27.6.2001 is quashed. The petitioner who has already worked and has been paid salary till 30.6.2004, has rightly been done so. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment of her retiral dues as if she had been in service till 30.6.2004. As such retiral dues shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner, in accordance with law, forthwith. This writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost“

13. Subsequently petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 6764 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 4.2.2008 that his claim be decided in accordance with law, thereafter the impugned order was passed.

14. Court is of considered opinion that the Government Order dated

4.2.2004 has to be adopted by the respondent College run by Electricity Board since it was based on certain conditions.

15. Service conditions of teachers of College concerned as well as other colleges are different which has been referred in Smt. Satyawati Verma (Supra) as well as in the counter affidavit also, therefore, there must be specific adoption of Government Order dated 4.2.2004 and since it was not adopted by Electricity Board, therefore, benefit of it could not be claimed, since retirement age was not increased in the concerned College from 60 to 62 years.

16. In the aforesaid circumstances, claim of the petitioner for gratuity was rightly rejected since not only the relevant Government Order dated

04.02.2004 was not adopted by the Electricity Board as well as petitioner has not prayed in the pending writ petition at that time wherein an interim order was passed that petitioner be allowed to work up to the age of 62 years and disposed of later on in the year 2007 or to provide an option for the purpose of gratuity, therefore, such relief 6 cannot be granted to the petitioner by way of subsequent writ petition when the Government Order as referred above was not even adopted, and its terms and conditions were not satisfied, therefore, claim of the petitioner has no legal basis. Impugned Order has no illegality.

17. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

passed by this Court in Smt. Satyawati Verma Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr, 1998 (1) A.W.C. 681.

4. Now the petitioner has filed this writ petition stating that once this Court has held that the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1921’) are applicable to the teachers of the college managed by the Electricity Board and since she was allowed to work up to age of 60 years, therefore, she is entitled for gratuity also. However, her claim was rejected by a reasoned order 2 dated 8.12.2008 that her services were not covered with the relevant Government Order dated 4.2.2004. The said order is impugned in present case. Relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter:- उपरोʦ✍ वि(cid:8)(cid:8)ेचनानुसार य룋 स्प꽞쇘 룋鏏롫 वि(cid:20) याच砧鲰 स्(cid:8)दे斔瞼 (cid:20)ु मार砧鲰 वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद (cid:20)न्या विदनां(cid:20) २०० (cid:20)ो से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृ꽏룴 룋ुय砧鲰 룋鏏롫脷鏍 मा० उ瞹滌 न्यायालय (cid:20)े आदे斔瞼 विदनां(cid:20) १०. २००ʭᑎ सि손펛सम尝尠 ्ቚति⓾䁓प्ቌ砧鲰 उ०्ቚ० राज्य वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 उत्पादन विनगम लिलविमटेᯁᮘ 룋鏏롫 म尝尠 लिल瞎敎 आदे斔瞼 पारिर⓾䁓 वि(cid:20)ये गये 룋᭘ᮡ उʦ✍ "३- इण्टर (cid:20)ाले손펛 (cid:20)ासिसमपुर पा(cid:8)र 룋ाउस अल砧鲰ग敟溊 म尝尠 से(cid:8)ा (cid:20)र⓾䁓े 룋ुये ३०.०६. ०- याच砧鲰 (cid:20)ो से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴(cid:20) देय(cid:20)롛ꖆ (cid:20)े भुग⓾䁓ान (cid:20)े आदे斔瞼 (cid:20)ा मुख्य अं斔瞼 विनम्न(cid:8)⓾䁓 룋鏏롫 脷鏍:- In the case of Smt. Satyuavati Verma Vs. U.P. State Electricity board 1998(1) A.W.C. 681 this Court in similar facts has held that the age of retirement of teachers even in schools and colleges run by the Electricity board would be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and as such they would retire at the age of 60 years, in such view of the matter the petitioner would also be entitled to retire at the age of 60 years and not at 58 years. As such the impugned order dated 27.06.2001 is quashed. The petitioner who has already worked and has been paid salary till 30.06.2004 has rightly been done so. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment if her retrial dues as if she had been in service till 30.06.2004. As such retrial dues shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner in accordance with law forthwith. उपरोʦ✍ आदे斔瞼 भ砧鲰 मा० उ瞹滌 न्यायालय ्ቛारा इस ⓾䁓थ्य (cid:20)ा सं्ሺान ले⓾䁓े 룋ुये वि(cid:20) संदቝኌभ⓾䁓 वि(cid:8)्ቕालय उ०्ቚ० माध्यविम(cid:20) शि斔瞼्ቌा अतिGविनयम १९२१ से अच्छाविद⓾䁓 룋᭘ᮡ विनदP斔瞼 विदये याच砧鲰 (cid:20)౮ᕝ से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴 (cid:20)౮ᕝ आयु ५숶꿹 (cid:8)षN से ब敟溊ा(cid:20)र ६० (cid:8)षN वि(cid:20)ये 손펛ाने (cid:20)े गये 룋鏏롫脷鏍 ति⓾䁓शिQ १० . . ० २०० (cid:20)े ्ቚावि(cid:8)Gान लागू Qे परन्⓾䁓ु 손펛鏏롫सा उपर उ्ቤे푶 वि(cid:20)या गया 룋鏏롫 उʦ✍ ्ቚावि(cid:8)Gान मा湭斉 अ斔瞼ास(cid:20)౮ᕝय स룋ाय⓾䁓ा ्ቚा्቎ माध्यविम(cid:20) वि(cid:8)्ቕालय롛ꖆ म尝尠 斔瞼ासन ्ቛारा सृसि손펛⓾䁓 पद롛ꖆ पर लागू 룋ोगा वि(cid:20)न्⓾䁓ु रिरट यातिच(cid:20)ा म尝尠 याच砧鲰 ्ቛारा इस ⓾䁓थ्य (cid:20)ो सामने न룋⸱⸖ लाया गया脷鏍 मा० उ瞹滌 न्यायालय ्ቛारा उपर롛ꖆʦ✍ आदे斔瞼 पारिर⓾䁓 वि(cid:20)ये 손펛ाने (cid:20)౮ᕝ २००ʭᑎ (cid:20)े पू(cid:8)N से 룋砧鲰 斔瞼ासनादे斔瞼 विदनां(cid:20)  . २ . याच砧鲰 ्ቛारा अ(cid:8)मानना यातिच(cid:20)ा (cid:20)े साQ ्ቚस्⓾䁓ु⓾䁓 ्ቚत्या(cid:8)ेदन म尝尠 इस विबन्दु (cid:20)ो अलग से 손펛ोड़(cid:20)र ६२ (cid:8)षN पर से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴 वि(cid:8)षय(cid:20) उʦ✍ 斔瞼ासनादे斔瞼 विदनां(cid:20)  . २ . २०० सि손펛स(cid:20)ा लाभ उसे अनुमन्य न룋砧鲰 룋鏏롫 (cid:20)े आGार पर से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴(cid:20) लाभ롛ꖆ (cid:20)౮ᕝ गणना (cid:20)౮ᕝ मांग (cid:20)౮ᕝ गय砧鲰 룋᭘ᮡ उपरोʦ✍ वि(cid:8)(cid:8)ेचनानुसार याच砧鲰 (cid:20)ो ६२ (cid:8)षN (cid:20)౮ᕝ से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴 आयु पर से(cid:8)ाविन(cid:8)ृलि꽏룴(cid:20) लाभ (cid:20)౮ᕝ अनुमन्य⓾䁓ा विनयमानुसार देय न룋⸱⸖ 룋᭘ᮡ साQ 룋砧鲰 चू ंवि(cid:20) वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद (cid:20)न्या इण्टर (cid:20)ाले손펛 (cid:20)ासिसमपुर पा(cid:8)र 룋ाउस अल砧鲰ग敟溊 वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद ्ቛारा संचालिल⓾䁓 瞎敎(cid:8)ं वि(cid:8)꽏룴 पोविष⓾䁓 वि(cid:8)्ቕालय 룋鏏롫 अ⓾䁓劉䧀 उʦ✍ वि(cid:8)्ቕालय롛ꖆ (cid:20)౮ᕝ (cid:20)मNचारिरय롛ꖆ (cid:20)े से(cid:8)ा संबंG砧鲰 भुग⓾䁓ान (cid:20)౮ᕝ (cid:20)ायN(cid:8)ा룋砧鲰 स्(cid:8)यं वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद ्ቛारा लागू - विनयम롛ꖆ आविद (cid:20)े अनुसार वि(cid:8)्ቕु⓾䁓 परिरषद ्ቛारा 룋砧鲰 (cid:20)౮ᕝ 손펛ान砧鲰 룋᭘ᮡ 斔瞼ासनादे斔瞼 संख्या १२ʭᑎ - - 숶꿹 - २०० २००३ ट砧鲰०स砧鲰० विदनां(cid:20)  फर(cid:8)र砧鲰 २०० (cid:20)े ्ቚावि(cid:8)Gान याच砧鲰 (cid:20)े संबंG म尝尠 ्ቚभा(cid:8)砧鲰 न룋⸱⸖ 룋ोगा脷鏍 / १६ विनयम / १५ उपयु Nʦ✍ (cid:8)ቝኌण⓾䁓 ቝኌस्Qति⓾䁓 (cid:20)े ्ቚ(cid:20)ा斔瞼 म尝尠 瞎敎⓾䁓द्ቛारा ्ቦ砧鲰म⓾䁓砧鲰 स्(cid:8)दे斔瞼 (cid:20)ु मार砧鲰 (cid:20)ा ्ቚत्या(cid:8)ेदन विदनां(cid:20) १숶꿹.०२. २००숶꿹 विनस्⓾䁓ारिर⓾䁓 वि(cid:20)या 손펛ा⓾䁓ा 룋鏏롫脷鏍" 3 (Emphasis supplied)

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the judgement passed in Smt. Satyawati Verma (Supra) that provisions of Act, of 1921 were held to be applicable in respect of recognized institution of U.P. Electricity Board, therefore, benefits granted to the teachers of College governed under the Act of 1921 were also applicable to the petitioner and therefore, prayed that impugned order be set aside.

6. Per Contra learned Additional Chief Standing Council has supported the impugned order and refers Government Order dated 4.2.2004, whereby the retirement age was increased from 60 to 62 years, subject to certain conditions that, it was applicable only on non-government aided secondary schools as well as only to the teachers working against sanctioned post and he refers relevant part of the impugned order that in present case aforesaid both conditions were not fulfilled, therefore, claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. It is not disputed that college concerned was managed by the U. P. Electricity Board and services of the petitioner was governed by The Electricity Service Commission Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulation 1978.

9. The Government Order dated 4.2.2004 was neither adopted by the Electricity Board nor an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit any option as required, therefore, there is force in the argument of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that Government Order dated 4.2.2004 was not applicable in the case of petitioner.

10. In the above background, there are certain other factors which are adverse to his claim that petitioner has taken some other benefits including free residential accommodation and electricity at subsidised rates, which were not extended to teachers of other aided colleges. 4

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Smt. Satyawati Verma (Supra). However, Court is of the view that it was only in regard to age of retirement being extended from 58 or 60 years. No further consideration was made as to whether what would be the effect of any prior Government Order as to whether it would be automatically applicable or not.

12. The petitioner was allowed to work till the age of 60 years by an interim order dated 24.5.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.26209 of 2001. Said writ petition was finally allowed vide order dated 10.4.2007. However, petitioner has neither filed any amendment nor claimed that she may be allowed to work till the age of 62 years or to give any option or to give advantage of said G.O. dated 4.2.2004 issued much prior to disposal of the writ petition. For reference order dated 10.4.2007 passed in the aforesaid writ petition is reproduced hereinafter: “The petitioner was a teacher in the Inter college run by the respondent-UP.Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). As per the regulations of the Corporation, the age of retirement of its employees was 58 years at the relevant time. The college was recognized by the Board under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Since the age of retirement under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was enhanced from 58 to 60 years, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the order dated 27.6.2001 whereby she was informed that she would be retiring on 30.6.202 on attaining the age of 58 years. A further prayer has been made that the petitioner may be permitted to continue to work as teacher till the age of 60 years and be paid her regular salary. By means of the interim order dated 24.5.2002 the petitioner was permitted to continue to work till the age of 60 years and as such she has been in service as teacher till 30.0.2004 and has also been paid her salary. In the case of Smt. Sarywari Verma vs. U.P.State Electricity Board 1998(1) A.W.C.681 this Court, in similar facts, has held that the age of retirement of teachers even in schools and colleges run by the Electricity Board would be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate 5 Education Act, 1921 and as such they would retire at the age of 60 years. In such view of the matter the petitioner would also be entitled to retire at the age of 60 years, and not at 58 years. As such the impugned order dated 27.6.2001 is quashed. The petitioner who has already worked and has been paid salary till 30.6.2004, has rightly been done so. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment of her retiral dues as if she had been in service till 30.6.2004. As such retiral dues shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner, in accordance with law, forthwith. This writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost“

13. Subsequently petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 6764 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 4.2.2008 that his claim be decided in accordance with law, thereafter the impugned order was passed.

14. Court is of considered opinion that the Government Order dated

4.2.2004 has to be adopted by the respondent College run by Electricity Board since it was based on certain conditions.

15. Service conditions of teachers of College concerned as well as other colleges are different which has been referred in Smt. Satyawati Verma (Supra) as well as in the counter affidavit also, therefore, there must be specific adoption of Government Order dated 4.2.2004 and since it was not adopted by Electricity Board, therefore, benefit of it could not be claimed, since retirement age was not increased in the concerned College from 60 to 62 years.

16. In the aforesaid circumstances, claim of the petitioner for gratuity was rightly rejected since not only the relevant Government Order dated

04.02.2004 was not adopted by the Electricity Board as well as petitioner has not prayed in the pending writ petition at that time wherein an interim order was passed that petitioner be allowed to work up to the age of 62 years and disposed of later on in the year 2007 or to provide an option for the purpose of gratuity, therefore, such relief 6 cannot be granted to the petitioner by way of subsequent writ petition when the Government Order as referred above was not even adopted, and its terms and conditions were not satisfied, therefore, claim of the petitioner has no legal basis. Impugned Order has no illegality.

17. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 SB SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad