Nathi Singh vs Regional Girls Inspectress of Schools, Agra & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner was clerk in Seth Harcharan Das Girls Inter College, Hathras, district Aligarh. He was to attain the age of 58 years r on 31101992. Through G.O. dated 610 g 1990 option was given to the employees of 5 the aided schools either to opt for retirement 3 at the age of 58 years or at the age of 60 years. Petitioner gave option of retirement at the age g of 58 years on 15121990. Accordingly, petitioner was made to retire on 31101992. Copy of the option is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In para 5 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that immediately after retirement petitioner approached the respondents with the request that since age of superannuation was 60 years hence he should be allowed to work till 31101994. It is stated in the same para that on 2161993 college authorities issued no dues certificate to the petitioner. There is no allegation that any request for withdrawal of the option was made before 31101992. Neither copies of alleged written requests made after the said date (as alleged in para 5 of the writ petition) have been annexed nor their dates have been given.

Petitioner has also annexed copy of G.O. dated 18111991 as Annexure 3 to the writ petition and has stated that he was not aware of the said G.O.

Annexure 5 to the writ petition is a letter dated 691993 written by the Principal of the college to the petitioner. In the said letter it is mentioned that in reply to the earlier letter dated 2881993 written by the Principal regarding submission of forms and documents for payment of pension, petitioner had mentioned that in the absence of gratuity retirement was not accepted. That appears to be first written communication by the Petitioner to the principal. It was made after about 10 months of actual retirement.

The main case of the petitioner is that by virtue of G.O. dated 18111991 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), age of retirement of nonteaching employees of aided schools again became 60 years, hence he was entitled to continue till 31101994. The case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the said G.O. is not believable. No one can plead ignorance of law.

In any case the G.O. dated 18111991 cannot be interpreted in the manner in which learned counsel for the petitioner wanted it to be interpreted. It was mentioned in the said G.O. that those teachers and nonteaching employees who were appointed after the G.O. dated 6101990 would automatically be held entitled to the new pension scheme and teachers would be required to give option at the time of appointment as to whether they would to retire at the age of 58 years or 60 years. It was further mentioned that as facility of gratuity was not available to nonteaching employees hence their age of retirement would remain 60 years.

In my opinion provision that age of retirement of nonteaching staff would be 60 years was made applicable only to those nonteaching employees who were appointed after 6101990.

Through G.O. dated 18.11.1991 it was further provided that under the previous G.O. dated 6101990 it was provided that those who did not give any option would retire at the age of 58 years. That provision was changed (by the said G.O. dated 18111991) and it was provided that those teachers and nonteaching employees who did not give any option would retire at the age of 60 years.

In my opinion as far as those nonteaching employees who had given their option to retire at 58 years under G.O. dated 6101990 are concerned, they were not affected by the subsequent G.O. dated 18111991. Copy of G.O. dated 6101990 has not been annexed. Under G.O. dated 6101990 those nonteaching employees who opted to retire at 58 years were held entitled to gratuity. Petitioner opted for retirement at 58 years of age hence he was entitled to gratuity. Subsequent G.O. dated 18111991 on the one hand cannot deprive the petitioner of his right to receive gratuity and on the other hand it did not confer any right upon the petitioner and similarly situate nonteaching employees to continue to work (or resume work) till 60 years of age even if they had given option of retirement at the age of 58 years. In any case option had been given much before the G.O. dated 18111991 and in spite of G.O. dated 18111991, in view of option given by the petitioner he was made to retired at the age of 58 years on 31101992 i.e. after the date of G.O. dated 18111991.

The assertion of the petitioner that he gave the option hurriedly is not at all acceptable. Option was given about 2 years before attaining the age of 58 years.

Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner that he should be treated to have retired on 31101994 is not acceptable, hence rejected. (In this writ petition filed on 2391993 no stay order was granted). However, petitioner is held entitled to gratuity and all benefits under the G.O. dated 6101990 irrespective of subsequent G.O. Dated 18111991. Let all the benefits, if not already paid, be paid within three months from the date production of certified copy of this order before the Competent Authority failing which 2% per month interest shall be payable thereupon since after the three months till actual payment.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.