B.DIKSHIT, J. - (1.) THE question which arise for determination in this petition is as to whether a Professor at Government Central Pedagogical Institute, Allahabad (in short 'Institute') belonging to Women's Branch and appointed under Rule 5(4) of U.P. Educational Teaching (Subordinate Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993 (in short 'Subordinate Gazetted Ser ­vice Rules') is entitled for the benefit so that her service may come to an end at the end of academic session on 30th June in view of Government Order No. 7022/15(1)/83 -31(16)/77 dated 21 -3 -84 read with Government Order No. 1239/19 -93 -31(14)795 dated 20 -4 -1995 ? The question has arisen as petitioner at ­tained the age of superannuation in the month of October. 1998 when a notice dated 13 -10 -1998 was served on her by Principal of Institute 10 handover charge on 31 -10 -1998 to another Professor on attaining the age of superannuation.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, relevant for determining present controversy are that petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher (Music) LT Grade at Rajkiya Kanya Vidyalaya Handia, District Al ­lahabad in the year 1987 when she was transferred to institute as Assistant Teacher LT Grade (Music). During her continuance at Institute, she was promoted as Lecturer (Music). When Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Lecturer's Cadre) Service Rules, 1992 (in short Lecturer's Cadre Service Rules) were enforced, she became member of that cadre and her service conditions stood governed by said rules. Subsequently, she was promoted as a Professor in Women's Branch during her continuance at In ­stitute. The present controversy has arisen as Principal of institute served a notice dated 13 -10 -1998 on petitioner directing her to hand over charge of the post to another Professor on 31 -10 -1998. The reason given in said letter for such a direc ­tion is that the petitioner was completing age of 58 years i.e. the age of superannua ­tion. The petitioner being aggrieved by said direction has filed this petition. Ac ­cording to petitioner, she could not be directed to hand over charge in view of Government Order No. 1239/19 -93 -31(14)/95 dated 20 -4 -1995. The said Government Order provides that teachers of Government institutions shall continue under certain conditions, till end of the academic session on attaining age of su ­perannuation, which means till 30th June next after attaining the age of superannua ­tion. The petitioner's case is that as she fulfils the condition mentioned in Government Order, she is entitled to con ­tinue till end of academic session 1998 -99, which is till 30th June. 1999. The condition which is attracted, which entitles her to continue till end of academic and known as session's benefit, according to petitioner is that teachers who were actually teaching some subject regularly arc entitled to continue till end of academic session. The petitioner's case is that as she is holding a teaching post of Professor and is teaching psychology to students of LT Course, therefore, she is entitled to such a benefit. The Principal of institute has disputed petitioner's claim that she is regularly teaching. According to Principal, petitioner is a Research Profes ­sor and is not associated with the teaching work and is not entitled for the benefit claimed. The Principal in counter -af ­fidavit has claimed that the institute is a department of State Council for Educa ­tion Research and Training, Lucknow and its main function is to conduct research on various educational subjects, conduct sur ­veys on educational problems and arrange workshop on these topics. Besides aforesaid functions it has also to look after development of curriculum of secondary and primary education as well as prepara ­tion of text -books for them. As according to Principal, the petitioner is associated with research work therefore, she is not entitled for session's benefit. Counter -af ­fidavit and rejoinder -affidavit have been exchanged and as the Counsel for petitioner and standing Counsel agreed that the writ petition be heard and dis ­posed of finally at this stage of admission, therefore, the writ petition has been heard and is being finally disposed of in accord ­ance with rules of the Court.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being member of Lecturers cadre under Lec ­turers Service Rules, she is entitled to con ­tinue till end of academic session, which has been opposed by learned Standing Counsel. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the service condition of the petitioner are to be governed by U.P. Educational Teaching (Subordinate Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993 (in short 'Subordinate Gazetted Service Rules'), The learned Counsel also argued that as petitioner was not doing teaching work, therefore, she is not entitled to continue till end of academic session.;