KAILASH NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up against the notice of retirement issued to him on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years as per Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Notices were issued and counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent State as well as by the Committee of Management. Both the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner had not exercised his option within time according to the Government Order dated 17.2.1999 within one year of his attaining 60 years and therefore he is not entitled to the benefits of continuance. They further contend that in the absence of any option having been exercised the petitioner cannot be treated to be continuing in service or even for entitlement of salary. The counter-affidavit of the District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad also takes the same stand.

(2.) The petitioner retired after attaining the age of 60 years on 1.7.2009. He continued thereafter till the end of the session i.e. upto 30.6.2010.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Yamuna Narain Mishra v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 17574 of 2007 which was in relation to the same institution. In the said case the option had been exercised but had not been communicated after being accepted by the competent authority. In essence in that case there was no reciprocation of the option.