JUDGMENT : D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. None appears for respondents 4 to 6 though served. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, seeks the following reliefs: "(a) Quash the Order No. MCPUC/19/2013-14, dated 7-6-2013 passed by the 5th respondent-Institution vide Annexure-C. (b) Direct the 1st respondent to implement the directions issued in W.P. No. 3044 of 2009 (S-RES) connected with W.P. No. 9336 of 2009 (S-RES) even by considering the case of the petitioner. (c) Further declare that act of the respondents 4 to 6 in retiring the services of the petitioner at the age of 58 years as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional". 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State Government is directed to consider case of all teachers in unaided school, as observed in the order dated 6-9-2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 3044 and 9366 of 2009 within time frame. This Court, while dealing with Writ Petition Nos. 3044 and 9366 of 2009, wherein, the petitioners had impugned similar endorsement as impugned in the present writ petition at Annexure-C, disposed of the said writ petitions with the following observation in paragraph 9: "9. Since it is a matter for the State Government to decide, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the teachers in unaided institutions whose age of superannuation may be considered by some private managements as 58 whereas for aided institutions, there is an express direction by the Government order to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 to 60. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, since the Government order does not include the unaided institutions, it is not possible for this Court to read into the Government order in question, a provision which would extend the benefit of the age of superannuation being taken at 60 instead of 58 in unaided institutions. The State Government may therefore consider the case of the petitioners and similarly placed teachers and if the Government should now take a decision to extend such benefit and if the petitioners who have already retired from service are also taken into consideration, it may then be open for the petitioners to raise a claim against the Management". The State Government may therefore consider the case of the petitioners and similarly placed teachers and if the Government should now take a decision to extend such benefit and if the petitioners who have already retired from service are also taken into consideration, it may then be open for the petitioners to raise a claim against the Management". (emphasis supplied) Though, the directions, as aforementioned, was issued, this Court is informed that till today, the State Government has not considered the case of the petitioners in those writ petitions or similarly placed teachers. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned though they were not party to the earlier petitions, they claim that they are similarly placed teachers, and the decision of the Government in pursuance of the directions issued vide order dated 6-9-2011 will have a direct bearing on them. 3. Learned Government Advocate on the other hand submits that in any case, either the present petitioner or the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 3044 and 9366 of 2009 or similarly placed teachers are not entitled for any benefit they being teachers in unaided private schools. She submits that the Government cannot take any decision unless the managements undertake to pay their salaries if the age of retirement is extended from 58 to 60. She submits that Government, however, will not have any objection to consider the case of teachers in unaided school as per the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 6-9-2011 in the light of the stand taken by the Government in their statement of objections filed in the present writ petition. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that this writ petition can be conveniently be disposed of by the following order: (i) The State Government shall take decision as per the order dated 6-9-2011 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 3044 and 9366 of 2009 in the light of the observations made in the order so also the stand of the Government reflected in the statement of objections filed in the present writ petition. (ii) It is needless to state that the Government can take into consideration the provisions of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder for arriving at appropriate decision, in respect of the teachers working in unaided private schools. (ii) It is needless to state that the Government can take into consideration the provisions of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder for arriving at appropriate decision, in respect of the teachers working in unaided private schools. (iii) The Government shall take decision, as aforementioned, on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. (iv) Petitioner to produce copy of this order along with their representation and copy of the writ petition with all annexures including the statement of objections filed by the respondents and annexures thereto before the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from today. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.