Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) BY means of present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to grant gratuity and other retiral benefits.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on 7.8.1971 by a competent authority in a institution named as Mahamana Malviya Inter College Khekhada, District Aligarh imparting secondary education and is un der grant-in-aid by the State Government. THE provision for payment of salary of 1971 is applicable. THE petitioner attained the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years on 31.10.2005. Admittedly, when the petitioner retired he was not entitled for gratuity and other retiral benefits. THE State Government by the Government Order dated 19.4.2006 provided the benefits of gratuity and other retiral benefits to the non-teaching Class IV employees. THE petitioner claimed the benefit of gratuity and post retiral benefits on the basis of the Government order dated 19.4.2006 and accordingly filed a representation in this regard. THE representation has not been decided. THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The respondent has filed the counter-affidavit stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled for the gratuity and other retiral benefits as he has retired prior to 19.4.2006 and under the Government Order dated 19.4.2006 only those non-teaching staffs are entitled for the benefit of the gratuity and post retrial benefits, who retires after 19.4.2006. This position has been clari fied by the Government Order dated 23.11.2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government Or der dated 19.4.2006 is applicable to those employees also who have retired prior to 19.4.2006. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of gratuity and other post retiral benefits under the Government Order dated 19.4.2006. In sup port of the contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, 1983 (47) FLR 42 (SC)=1983 (1) SCC 305 Dhanraj and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, 1998 (179) FLR 160 (SC) Shanti Devi (Smt.) v. State of U.P. 2001 (45) ALR 254 and Mohan Lal Sharma and etc. v. State of Rajasthan and another2004 (3) ESC 1690.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel states that the petitioner is not entitled for the gratuity and post retiral benefits as the Government Order dated 19.4.2006 was prospective and the benefit of post retiral benefits and gratuity is avail able only to those who retired after 19.4.2006. In alternative he submitted that if the Government Order dated 19.4.2006 is made applicable to those who re tired before 19.4.2006, the retired employees would be entitled for the benefits only w.e.f. 19.4.2006 and not prior to that, which is also clear from the Government Order dated 23.11.2007. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.;