V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed on the post of peon in Madarsa Islamiya Jama Masjid, Jhansi, in july. 1978. He was transferred in 1993 as peon to Islamiya Oriental College, Chaniyapura, jhansi. He is still working in the institution. He made a representation on 8. 11. 1999 to District basic Education Officer, Jhansi (in brief B. S. A.) that the option given by him on 11. 1. 1994 to retire at the age of 58 years be not accepted. This representation was not decided. He filed Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 50620 of 1999. It was disposed of on 3. 12. 1999 with a direction to b. S. A. to decide his representation. He served the order on B. S. A. along with a representation dated 3. 1. 2000. The B. S. A. rejected his representation on 10. 2. 2000. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10. 2. 2000. It is claimed that the petitioner is a class-IV employee. The post of peon is a Group d post. The age of retirement of Group d employee is 60 years, therefore, he cannot be retired at the age of 58 years. On the basis of order dated 10. 2. 2000, the respondents issued notice on 2. 9. 2000 to him that he would retire after attaining the age of 58 years on 31. 12. 2000. ( 2 ) TIME was granted to the standing counsel on 15. 3. 2000 for filing counter-affidavit. More than eight months have passed but no counter-affidavit has been filed. Since there is no factual dispute and the only question is of interpretation of Government order dated 30. 10. 1999, I have heard Sri K. P. Tiwari the learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are formal parties, therefore, service on them is not necessary. I have accepted this statement as the impugned order is of B. S. A. and the petitioner would be retiring on 31. 12. 2000. In the circumstances, this petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have accepted this statement as the impugned order is of B. S. A. and the petitioner would be retiring on 31. 12. 2000. In the circumstances, this petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner was being illegally retired by the respondents at the age of 58 years on 31. 12. 2000. The petitioner is a class-IV employee and his age of retirement is 60 years. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 10. 2. 2000 by the B. S. A. on the basis of option given by him on 11. 1. 1994 as per government order dated 23. 11. 1993. He urged that the Government order dated 23. 11. 1993 was modified on 30. 10. 1999 and it was mentioned that option given as per Government order dated 23. 11. 1993 was meaningless. The learned standing counsel has supported the impugned order. ( 4 ) BY G. O. No. 3760 (4) 15-6-1993 (25/9) Lucknow dated 23. 11. 1993, the Government appears to have applied the scheme of pension and contributory provident fund, etc. , to employees of arabi Farsi Madarsas. It permitted the employees to opt for it. The benefit of option, probably, was pension and contributory provident fund scheme etc. Those who opted for it were to retire at 58 years. Others could continue till 60 years. The option exercised was final under paragraph 3 of the order. The order is not on record. But these facts appear from the order of B. S. A. He held while rejecting the representation that since petitioner exercised the option, it was final and he cannot claim that he could continue till the age of 60 years. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has filed the G. O. No. 1030/bawan-3-99- (4)/96 Lucknow dated 30. 10. 1999 issued by the Government to Director. Minority Welfare on the subject of pension to employees of Arabi Farsi Madarsas. It clarified the G. O. dated 23. 11. 1993. The order states that paragraph 5 of the 1993 order it was provided that in Arabi Farsi Madarsas Governments share would be deposited by the Government in contributory provident fund scheme. 1999 issued by the Government to Director. Minority Welfare on the subject of pension to employees of Arabi Farsi Madarsas. It clarified the G. O. dated 23. 11. 1993. The order states that paragraph 5 of the 1993 order it was provided that in Arabi Farsi Madarsas Governments share would be deposited by the Government in contributory provident fund scheme. But since the contributory provident fund scheme did not apply to these institutions, there was no question for any deposit, therefore, contributory provident fund scheme was never enforced by the Government in Arabi farsi Madarsas as provided by order dated 23. 11. 1993. The Government clarified that in such a situation, there was no question of obtaining any option from the employees. The order directed the Director, Minority Welfare to take necessary action with regard to payment of pension. In this G. O. dated 30. 10. 1999, by mistake the date of earlier Government order was mentioned as 30. 11. 1993 at two places. It was clarified by another G. O. No. 2614/bawan-3-99- (4)/96 T. C. , lucknow dated 16. 11. 1999 that in G. O. No. 1030/bawan-3-99- (4)/96 Lucknow dated 30. 10. 1999 instead of 30. 11. 1993, it should be read as 23. 11. 1993. ( 6 ) FROM the Government orders issued on 30. 10. 1999 and 16. 11. 1999. it is clear that scheme of contributory provident fund was not applicable to Arabi Farsi Madarsas. Therefore, the government clarified that the question of exercising option by employee for retiring at the age of 58 years was meaningless. Consequently, the option given by the petitioner in 1994 was of no consequence. It could not be enforced against him. Once the option is ignored, the petitioner is entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. The order dated 10. 2. 2000 passed by B. S. A. cannot be maintained. Any order or notice issued in pursuance of this order falls automatically. ( 7 ) IN the result this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 10. 2. 2000 passed by respondent No. 1. Annexure-5 to the writ petition and consequential proceedings are quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years. ( 7 ) IN the result this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 10. 2. 2000 passed by respondent No. 1. Annexure-5 to the writ petition and consequential proceedings are quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years. He shall be paid his salary and his post retiral benefits shall be calculated treating his age of retirement as 60 years. ( 8 ) THE parties shall bear their own costs. .