Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 8th October, 1999 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Moradabad by which the representation filed by the petitioner for treating his age of superannuation to be 58 years and for providing the consequential benefits was rejected. The petitioner was a Lecturer in the Raja Jwala Prasad Arya Inter College, Bijnor (hereinafter referred to as the ''College'). The said College is an Intermediate College recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Payment of Salaries Act, 1971 is applicable. It is said that pursuant to the Government Order dated 10th August, 1978, the petitioner submitted an option that his age of superannuation be treated as 58 years. Subsequently, the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement before he attained the age of 58 years which option was accepted on 30th June, 1996. He then submitted a representation that all the benefits available to the teachers who retired on attaining the age of 58 years should be made available to him. THIS representation was rejected by the order dated 8th October, 1999 which has been impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner had submitted his option to treat his age of superannuation as 58 years pursuant to the Government Order dated 10th August, 1978, the respondents should have treated his age of superannuation to be 58 years and should have granted all the benefits accordingly but that was not done and his age of superannuation was wrongly treated to be 60 years. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the option submitted by the petitioner was never accepted by the competent authority and nor was it communicated to the petitioner and in such circumstances in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Prabha Kakkar Vs. Joint Director of Education, Kanpur and Ors., 2000 (2) ESC 1118, his age of superannuaton has to be treated as 60 years. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the various Government Orders that have been issued from time to time regarding the option to be submitted by teachers of Government aided private Institutions regarding the age of superannuation. A Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 was issued providing for Contributory Provident Fund, Special Life Insurance, Pension including Family Pension to all teachers serving in the State Aided Primary Schools, Junior High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools, Degree Colleges and Training Colleges. The pensionary benefits admissible to the teachers serving in the Government aided private Institutions were not at par with the aforesaid benefits and so to remove the disparity and in order to provide the same pensionary benefits to the teachers of the Government aided private Institutions, the State Government issued the Government Order dated 31st March, 1978 and 10th August, 1978. However, as the age of superannuation in case of teachers serving in Government Colleges was 58 years, the teachers serving in Government aided private Institutions were asked to opt for age of superannuation at 58 years for getting the aforesaid pensionary benefits at par with the teachers serving in the Government Colleges. Under this Government Order dated 10th August, 1978, if a teacher opted to superannuate at the age of 58 years he was to get death-cum-retirement gratuity alongwith other pensionary benefits. In pursuance to this Government Order, options were exercised by some teachers but large number of teachers could not take the benefit and, therefore, another Government Order dated 6th October, 1990 was issued to give one more opportunity to the teachers to exercise their options. THIS Government Order was further clarified by the Government Order dated 4th November, 1991 requiring the teachers to exercise their options within a period of 90 days. Controversy arose as to whether the option once exercised by a teacher could be changed, modified or withdrawn subsequently and in view of conflicting decisions, a Larger Bench was constituted for giving its opinion to the following questions:- "1. Whether in the Scheme provided in the Government Orders dated 10.8.1978, 6.10.1990 and 4.11.1991 and the Rules of 1981 acceptance of the option exercised by the teacher and its communication was necessary to make it final and irrevocable?
(2.) WHETHER the option exercised by teacher became final and irrevocable after it was counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools? Whether by efflux of long time the option exercised by teacher in pursuance of the Government Orders could be legally deemed to have been accepted and it could not be changed or revoked?" The Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Prabha Kakkar (supra), after referring to the aforesaid Government Orders and the Circular dated 30th October, 1990 issued by the Director of Education pursuant to the Government Order dated 6th October, 1990, observed that in view of the specific requirement of acceptance of the option by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and communication of the same to the concerned employee, it was difficult to accept that formal acceptance of the option exercised by the teacher was not necessary. The Full Bench, accordingly observed that the act of acceptance of option by the Regional Deputy Director of Education and its communication to the employee was necessary in order to make it final. It also observed that the counter signature of the District Inspector of Schools on such option could neither be taken as acceptance nor could it attach any kind of finality to it. The observations to this effect are as follow:- ".........The circular order dated 30th October, 1990 issued by the Director of Education in pursuance of the Government Order dated 6th October, 1990, clearly provided that the acceptance/non-acceptance of the option exercised shall be communicated by the Regional Deputy Director of Education to the concerned employee within the specified time hence countersigning of the option by the District Inspector of Schools could not be taken as acceptance of the same. The purpose behind the requirement of countersigning by District Inspector of Schools was perhaps to ascertain that the option was exercised by the correct persons and he satisfied other conditions which were necessary for exercise of the option. The obligation of the District Inspector of Schools was thus to authenticate the signature of executing of the option and information supplied by him in the prescribed proforma. Thus our conclusion is that the act of acceptance of the option by the Deputy Director of Education and its communication to the employee was necessary in order to make it final. The counter signature of District Inspector of Schools on such option could neither be taken as acceptance nor could it attach any kind of finality to it. The questions No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly." It is in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench that the present controversy has to be examined. The option exercised by the petitioner was not accepted by the Joint Director of Education and nor was it communicated to the petitioner. It has, therefore, to be held, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Prabha Kakkar (supra), that the age of superannuation of the petitioner is 60 years. In the present case as the order of the Joint Director of Education indicates, even the District Inspector of Schools had not counter-signed the option exercised by the petitioner. In such circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;