RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.3.2006, whereby his claim for payment of gratuity treating his age of retirement to be 60 years has been rejected. There is an institution known as Sri Mahabir Digamber Jain Inter College, Sirsaganj, Firozabad (College). The said institution is stated to be a recognised and aided college. The petitioner was initially appointed in the college as lecturer (Mathematics) on 1.10.1973. On 4.9.1998, he was given officiating charge of Principal from 4.9.1998 to 30.6.2004 and he retired from service on 30.6.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of G.O. No. 395/15-8-99/3003(78)/90 dated 17.2.1999, he had exercised his option for treating his age of superannuation as 60 years instead of 58 years. This G.O. has been filed by him as annexure No. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit.

(2.) I have heard Sri N.K. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of the G.O. dated 17.2.1999, he had exercised his option. The said option has been filed by him as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same would show that it refers to another G.O. dated 4.2.2004 which provides that those retiring at the age of 58 years would be deemed to be retired on attaining the age of 60 years and those whose age of superannuation is 60 years would be deemed to be retired on attaining the age of 62 years.