JUDGMENT : Sunil Ambwani, J. Heard Sri. Anil Bhushan for the Committee of Management, Indian Girls Inter College, Allahabad and Sri. T.P. Singh Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Anupam Kumar for Respondent Sri. Maya Mukherjee. I have also heard learned standing Counsel for other Respondent. 2. Smt. Maya Mukherjee was a confirmed Principal of Indian Girls Inter College, Allahabad. She was conferred National Award for Teachers 1997, dated 5th September, 1998 by Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India, in public recognition of valuable services to the community as a teacher of outstanding merit. She attained age of superannuation (60 years) on 23.7.2002. In terms of Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, she was given extension of service upto 30.6.2003, which is known as 'Sessions' benefit'. The Government Order dated 23.10.1991, with reference to the previous Government Orders dated 6.5.1982, 27.7.1983, 4.12.1986, 2.8.1984, 3.9.1985 and 10.5.1988 provide for two years extension of the service to those teachers/principals who have been awarded National/State Awards. A Committee constituted for this purpose considers each case on its merit, and recommends for extension of service. By Government Order dated 24.1.2003, a direction was issued that where the recommendations are forwarded to the State Government for extension of service of teachers (with Sessions' benefits) the medical and health certificate shall also be made available. This condition was also be made applicable to the National/State Award winning teachers/principals. 3. The Committee of Management of the College submitted an information in prescribed proforma for extension of service of Smt. Maya Mukherjee. In column 5 of this proforma, it was stated that her work is not satisfactory and that the department has sent letters for taking disciplinary action against her. Inspite of objections raised by the Committee of Management, District Inspector of Schools made recommendations, for extension of her services to the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik). The Committee of Management by its resolution dated 11.4.2003 resolved that the service book of Smt. Maya Mukherjee was not made available by her. She did not produce the time table and the results of High School and Intermediate Examinations. The Committee found that her conduct and work was not satisfactory and that she has flouted departmental orders, which become source of litigation and payment of huge amount in future by the Government. She did not produce the time table and the results of High School and Intermediate Examinations. The Committee found that her conduct and work was not satisfactory and that she has flouted departmental orders, which become source of litigation and payment of huge amount in future by the Government. The Committee of Management resolved not to recommend her name for extension of service. 4. The State Government by its order dated 23.9.2003, almost two months and 23 days after her retirement issued a Government Order extending the services of Smt. Maya Mukherjee, Principal of Indian Girls Inter College, Allahabad for two years w.e.f. 1.7.2003, along with nine other teachers/principals. The Committee of Management has challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 50031/2003. 5. The Committee of Management submitted a representation dated 7.1.2004 to the Secretary, Education as well as the District Inspector of Schools stating that as per the Government Order, Smt. Maya Mukherjee was required to fill up a bond. She has not complied with the conditions of extension of service and has not given undertaking as provided in the order, and that on the retirement of Smt. Maya Mukherjee, the Committee promoted Smt. Ishani Bhattacharya as Officiating Principal. The Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik-III) by her letter dated 30.1.2004 directed the Committee of Management to make payment to her Smt. Maya Mukherjee as Principal of the College, and to grant leave for the period she had not performed her duties. This order has been challenged by the Committee of Management of the Institution in Writ Petition No. 4997/2004. 6. Sri. Anil Bhushan, Counsel for Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 5 cannot be given two benefits. She received the benefit of extension of service for about one year from 23.7.2002 to 30.6.2003, as session's benefits, and that having attained the age of superannuation on 23.7.2002 her services could not be extended on 23.9.2003, w.e.f. 1.7.2003. According to him, she could only be reappointed by Government Order dated 23.9.2003, and that in such case she will rank as junior most teacher in the college. He has relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in S.K. Rathi v. Prem Hari Sharma and Ors. 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2433. Sri. Anil Bhushan also submits that while granting extension of service, the State Government must consider the recommendations of the Committee of Management of the College. He has relied upon judgment of Supreme Court in S.K. Rathi v. Prem Hari Sharma and Ors. 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2433. Sri. Anil Bhushan also submits that while granting extension of service, the State Government must consider the recommendations of the Committee of Management of the College. There was a gap of about four years between the National Award and the superannuation during which period the performance of Smt. Maya Mukherjee deteriorated. She withheld her service record and thus the Committee was handicapped in submitting its report. In any case the Committee had resolved not to recommend her for extension of her services. 7. Sri. T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the order of extension of her services will operate with effect from the date Respondent No. 5 actually retired as Principal, and that the Government Order dated 23.9.2003, specifically provides that her services as Principal of the College have been extended w.e.f. 1.7.2003. He submits that Respondent No. 5 has been awarded National Award for excellence in teaching, and that since the salary is to be paid by the State Government, the Committee of Management had no authority to object to the extension of service. According to Sri. T.P. Singh the extension is of a period which comes to an end. She retired on 30.6.2003 and thus the extension will operate w.e.f. 1.7.2003 and that the Committee of Management is not justified in resisting the extension of her services granted by the State Government. He has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dalbir Kaur, Kalyan (2000) 6 SCC 576, in which it was held that special provisions for extension of service will override general clause by which no extension could be given and that where State awardes have been re-employed the order of re-employment must be complied with for the purpose of extension of service. 8. The age of superannuation of Principal, Headmaster, Teacher and other employees has been fixed by Regulations. Regulation 21 of Chapter III of the Regulations made under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921, provide the age of superannuation to be 60 years. No one has a right to continue beyond the age fixed by Legislature. The benefit of academic session in Regulation 21, is in the interest of the students and not the Principal, Headmaster or a Teacher. No one has a right to continue beyond the age fixed by Legislature. The benefit of academic session in Regulation 21, is in the interest of the students and not the Principal, Headmaster or a Teacher. This benefit therefore, cannot defeat the rights of other teachers, to claim promotion, even on officiating basis by virtue of their seniority. The benefit of continuing upto the close of academic session cannot be used to hold an administrative office. Since a Principal is also required to take classes, the benefit is actually given to students, so that their studies may not be disturbed. The Supreme Court in S.K. Rathi (supra), has held that in such cases the teacher cannot continue to hold the post of ad hoc principal. 9. In Prem Dutt Chamoli v. State of U.P. SLP (C) No. 16808 of 1993, decided on 24.1.1994, the Supreme Court held that a National or State Award to teacher may entitle him to be given extension both in the interest of institution and the public to utilise their services as teachers, however the extension of two years shall not be counted for seniority for getting Principalship or any other higher post. In case the Committee of Management, wants to appoint or continue such teachers, they have the liberty to do so. This judgment was rendered in case of minority institution. The order of Supreme Court is quoted as below: All that is necessary to make clear in these petitions is that since the Petitioners have won National Award or State Award as teachers as the case may be they may be given two years extension in service as teachers according to the decision of the State Government itself. It is in the interest both of the institution and the public that their services as teachers should be utilised for such further period. However, it is made clear that these two years shall not be counted for seniority for getting either Principalship or any other higher post. If the Commission or the Committee (in the case of the minority institution), however, wants to appoint or continue such teachers as Principal otherwise than on the ground that they are senior because of the extension which is granted as per this order they are at liberty to do so. If the Commission or the Committee (in the case of the minority institution), however, wants to appoint or continue such teachers as Principal otherwise than on the ground that they are senior because of the extension which is granted as per this order they are at liberty to do so. The Committee appointed by the State Government, however, is at liberty not to grant extension in service to the teachers concerned, if they are of the opinion that the teachers have deteriorated in their performance as teachers after obtaining the National Award or if there was or is any complaint against them involving moral turpitude. The interim orders, if any, passed earlier in these matters shall stand vacated in view of the above order. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. 10. The submission that Smt. Maya Mukherjee was confirmed as Principal and that her services have been extended as Principal does not merit consideration. She was awarded National Award 1997, in recognition of her services as a teacher and not as a Principal. The sessions benefit was given to her for the benefit of the students. The Committee of Management was not satisfied with her performance as Principal and had resolved, not to recommend her for extension. In such case the State Government was required to consider the representation and recommen-dations of the Committee of Management. In the present case, however, Sri. Anil Bhushan states that the Committee of Management has no objection if she continues as a teacher provided the extension is counted from the date of her superannuation, excluding the sessions benefit. 11. This submission invites the Court to consider whether extension can be granted from the date of superannuation or after the period of sessions benefit. In the present case the services of Smt. Maya Mukherjee have been extended for two years. The word 'extension' means to enlarge, expand, lengthen, prolong, or to carry out further than its original limit. It is not a case of reappointment. Where an employee superannuates, the extension must begin from the date of superannuation. The object of extension is not to grant double benefit but to extend what has come to an end. Her services came to an end on the date she attained the age of 60 years, and not after the end of deemed extension conferred upon her. 12. Where an employee superannuates, the extension must begin from the date of superannuation. The object of extension is not to grant double benefit but to extend what has come to an end. Her services came to an end on the date she attained the age of 60 years, and not after the end of deemed extension conferred upon her. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.9.2003 and 30.1.2004 are set aside only to the extent that Smt. Maya Mukherjee, shall be given the benefit of extension of her services of two years, only as a teacher in the institution (and not as a Principal), with effect from the day she attained the age of sixty years. It will be open to the Committee of Management to appoint or to take work from her as Principal. The costs shall be born by parties.