SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Satendra Kumar Gupta holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.S. Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Facts:-
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the date of retirement of the petitioner at the age of 60 years is 30.06.2011 while the date of retirement at the age of 62 years is 30.06.2013, which fact has been admitted in paragraph-24 of the affidavit dated 24.10.2017 filed by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in the respondent No. 4 institution where he joined on 23.11.1974. While serving in the respondent No. 4 institution, he suffered brain haemorrhage in February, 2007. Even after treatment he found himself to be physically and mentally not fit to do teaching work. Consequently, he submitted an application on 01.08.2009 before the respondent No. 4 for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.2009 in terms of the Government Order No. 1862/15-8-3058/79, dated 24.06.1983. The aforesaid application was forwarded by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 3 who passed an order dated 24.10.2009 allowing the petitioner to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 31.10.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner retired voluntarily on 31.10.2009. Belatedly, his post retirement benefits were paid but the gratuity was not paid and as such, he made a representation dated 29.10.2010 before the respondent No. 4/5 and thereafter before the respondent No. 3 on 17.01.2011. Since no decision was taken by the respondent No. 3 for payment of gratuity to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner filed Writ-A No. 44474 of 2013 (Dr. Onkar Nath Katiyar v. State of U.P. and four others) , which was disposed of by order dated 29.08.2013 directing District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj to see and ensure that a final decision is taken in accordance with law, preferably within next three months. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 11.03.2014 was passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the claim of gratuity of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that in terms of Government Order No. 127/15-8-2004-16- Niyam/2003 T.C. dated 04.02.2004, the petitioner has not submitted the option before one year (before 1st July). Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and a personal affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No. 1. Submission of the petitioner:-;