JUDGMENT : FERDINO INACIO REBELLO, C.J. & AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.- The management is in appeal against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.6.2010. The writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge. 2. Considering the short controversy involved. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the writ petition itself be disposed of as it raises pure questions of law. 3. The petitioner was working as a lecturer and is now holding the post of ad hoc Principal. The petitioner was born on 17.12.1949 and he had initially submitted his option to retire at the age of 58 years. Subsequently in terms of the Government order dated 17.2.99 read with Government order dated 4.2.2004 the petitioner submitted a fresh option proposing to retire at the age of 62 years. 4. The age of retirement previously was 60 years with an option to retire at the age of 58 years with the benefit of gratuity. 5. The earlier option was sought some time in 1982 in which respondent No.1 opted to retire at the age of 58 years. The State Government thereafter issued another notification on 17.2.1999 under which the option could be given at any time before one year of the age of retirement. The 1999 notification was subject-matter of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Prabha Kakkar v. Joint Director of Education Kanpur and others1. 6. On 4.2.2004 the State Government issued another notification by which the age of retirement has been enhanced from 58 to 60 years for those who opted for gratuity and from 60 to 62 years for those who did not opt for gratuity. In para 4 of the Government order dated 4.2.2004 it is stated that in this regard the other terms and conditions which were earlier existing shall continue. 7. In the instant case the petitioner would ordinarily have retired on 17.12.2007 at the age of 58 years. However, on account of the 2004 notification the age of retirement was extended to 17.12.2009. The petitioner on 30.11.2008 exercised his option to retire at the age of 62 years. This application was considered by the management in its meeting on 4.1.2009. Thereafter the same was communicated to the concerned authorities who have returned the matter back to the management for better details. 8. The petitioner on 30.11.2008 exercised his option to retire at the age of 62 years. This application was considered by the management in its meeting on 4.1.2009. Thereafter the same was communicated to the concerned authorities who have returned the matter back to the management for better details. 8. The petitioner would have retired in view of the Government order of the 2004 on 17.12.2009. He exercised his option on 30.11.2008. In view of this background of the case the issue needs to be considered. 9. The position thus would be that a teacher or Principal can exercise the option one year before the age of retirement, as the case may be. Once the application is made within the time frame there would be no occasion for the authorities to reject the same. In the instant case the application was moved within time. With the benefit of the enhanced age of retirement under the Government order dated 4.2.2004 that was available the option was rightly exercised on 30.11.2008 within the time frame contained in the Government order dated 17.2.1999. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the respondent No.1 continues to be in service and is getting salary of the post. 10. The respondent No.3 is therefore directed to consider the same in the light of the observations made herein above and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months. In the meantime the respondent No.1 shall continue to hold the post which he was holding. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the special appeal is disposed of. Accordingly the writ petition also stands disposed of. 12. A copy of this order is placed in the record of the writ petition. Appeal Disposed Off