BRIJENDRA PRAKASH KULSHRESHTHA Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.S. Sharma, Sri Raj Kumar and Miss Enaksht Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) In this writ petition, the orders dated 1.12.1994 and 8.12.1994 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jhansi and the authorised controller, i.e., (Annexures-8 and 9) respectively are challenged. The prayer of the petitioner to retire him at the age of 60 years has been rejected whereby the second option form submitted by the petitioner opted to retire at 60 years of age has been rejected.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as an L.T. grade teacher in Saraswati Inter College, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi, duly recognised and is governed by the provisions of U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 and U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. As per the provisions laid down under Regulation 21 of Chapter III of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the age of superannuation of a teacher is 60 years. It has also been provided the date of superannuation falls during the mid of session, the teacher would be entitled to continue till 30th June of following session. As such, the petitioner was to be retired on 30.6.1997. The Government order dated 6.10.1990 (Annexure-1) where the option was given to the teachers to retire them at the age of 58 years for this purpose, the options were submitted and were sent to the D.I.O.S. for making necessary scrutiny and the order of acceptance shall be communicated by the Deputy Director of Education concerned to the teacher concerned in writing within a period of one month. Another Government order dated 30.10.1990 (Annexure-2) was issued whereby such option forms were to be received by Deputy Director of Education through D.I.O.S. In pursuance to the above Government order, the petitioner gave his option showing his willingness to get retirement at the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner, before acceptance and communication by Deputy Director of Education, the State Government issued another Government order dated 4.11.1991 (Annexure-4) and another opportunity was given to submit option form for seeking retirement. It appears, petitioner later on submitted another form by letter dated 1.2.1992 opted to retire at the age of 60 years in place of 58 years. The second option form was duly received in the office of D.I.O.S. on 1.2.1994 and was transmitted to the Deputy Director of Education subsequently for proper action. When no action was taken, he made representation on 21.9.1994 (Annexure-5) before the Deputy Director of Education and 23.11.1994 before the D.I.O.S. showing his willingness to seek retirement at the age of 60 years. On 1.12.1994 (Annexure-8) the D.I.O.S. rejected the second option form submitted by the petitioner by saying that there was no provision under which the second option form could have been accepted.