ORDER : J.K. Maheshwari, J. All these petitions have been filed either to reject the option forms to continue the petitioners till 60 years of the age or against an order to return the option forms because it has been received after the cutoff date, i.e. 23.5.2012. However, all the petitions are being heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. 2. It is not in dispute that in W.P. No.15557/2012 - Narmada Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of M.P., decided on 13.1.2014, this Court has resolved the controversy of the similar nature referring the policies as the issue for extension of the age of retirement and the option forms attached thereto. This court has held that the order inviting options to retire at enhanced age of 60 years was issued on 24.4.2012, which was communicated at latter date. In the Department where the petitioner was working, the order dated 24.4.2012 was communicated on 3/4.5.2012 and the option was submitted on 25.5.2012 within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, therefore, the respondents are not justified in declining to accept the options given by the petitioner to serve till the age of 60 years. Consequently, the decision taken by the respondents in not extending the benefit of extended age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years was set aside with a further direction to accept the option form of the petitioner and extend the benefit of the age of superannuation till 60 years. 3. In the context of the said judgment and looking to the facts of the present cases the arguments have been extensively advanced by the counsel for the respondents taking stand that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts from the present case. However, the counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents have heard at length. 4. On perusal of the facts of the present case it is not in dispute that the benefit of the extension of the age of retirement has been originated from the letter of the Govt. However, the counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents have heard at length. 4. On perusal of the facts of the present case it is not in dispute that the benefit of the extension of the age of retirement has been originated from the letter of the Govt. of M.P. through the Energy Department, Mantralaya, bearing No. 3313/13/2012/02 dated 24.4.2012 whereby it was approved that the employees of the first, second and third category working in the M.P. State Electricity Board absorbed in the M.P. Power Generating Company may continue till the age of 60 years extending the age of retirement from 58 to 60 on submitting option by them. It has further been clarified that the age of class IV employees were continued to be 60 years. In furtherance to the said circular of the Govt., the Power Generating Company has also issued the order on 24.4.2012 as referred in annexure P/5. In view of the language of the letter of the Power Generating Company and also of the State Govt., it is apparent that if an employee absorbed in the said Power Generating Company wants to continue in employment till the extended age of 60 years then they are required to submit their option. The cutoff date to submit the option is neither specified in the letter of the State Govt. nor in the order of the Power Generating Company, but, it is stipulated in the Note 1 and 2 of option form. On reading of the language of the said Note No. 1, it is apparent that because some of the employees are going to attain the age of superannuation, i.e. 58 years in the month of April, 2012, therefore, prior to attaining their age of superannuation they were required to submit their option for continuation till the extended age of 60 years, on or before 28.4.2012 and, in other cases, where the employees of the said Company are attaining the age of superannuation after April, 2012, they ought to have submitted their option within a period of one month from the date of the order. On reading of the language of the letter of the Power Generating Company as well as the contents of the notes specified in the option, it is clear that the options were asked only from those employees who are going to attain the age of superannuation prior to April, 2012, and thereafter. The option is not required to be submitted by an employee who is going to attain the age of superannuation on 58 years of age. The intention of issuance of this circular and putting the note in the option form is apparent that prior to attaining the age of superannuation by these employees the option forms ought to be before the department for consideration and not thereafter. However, looking to the same and with an object to receive the options immediately for taking decision by the Management of the Power Generating Company it should be complied with immediately. It cannot be said to be the cutoff date in stricto sensu. In any case, looking to the judgment delivered by this court in Narmada Prasad Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. dated 13.1.2014, note No. 2 has been interpreted indicating that the period of one month as specified in the said note in the option would be applicable from the date of communication. However, having regard to the view taken by the coordinate bench in the said judgment the option furnished within one month from the date of communication would be acceptable and the decision of the Department to return the option forms if not received prior to 23.5.2012 cannot be acceptable. In case, from the date of communication of the option form if the said option has been submitted within one month then such employees are entitled to continue till the extended age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years. However, rejection of their options merely due to cut off date is liable to be quashed. 5. On consideration of the aforesaid legal position, now the facts of the individual cases are required to be referred. 6. In W.P No. 2844/14 there are six petitioners. It is not in dispute that they are absorbed employees of the M.P. Power Generating Company, presently working in M.P Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. 5. On consideration of the aforesaid legal position, now the facts of the individual cases are required to be referred. 6. In W.P No. 2844/14 there are six petitioners. It is not in dispute that they are absorbed employees of the M.P. Power Generating Company, presently working in M.P Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. As per the letter of the Power Generating Company Ltd. dated 24.4.12 as well as 17.5.12, the Additional Secretary made a communication to the Chief Engineer of M.P Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. directing their Head of the Departments whereunder the employees of the power generating company are serving, to receive the options from them and to submit within a month. In furtherance to the said communications, petitioners No. 1 to 5 have indisputably submitted their options within a period of one, month as is apparent from para 5.5 of the return of the respondents. Thus, on submitting options within a month from the date of communication, i.e., 22.5.2012 the options of the petitioners deserve to be accepted and they deserve to be continued till the extended age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years. In such circumstances, the orders impugned passed by the respondent company for petitioners No. 1 to 5 are hereby quashed. The petitioners no.1 to 5 are directed to continue in service till attaining the extended age of superannuation i.e., 60 years. So far as petitioner no. 6 is concerned, it is said that he had submitted the option on 1.5.2012 which was disputed by the respondents to be received in the office. However, he submitted a second option on 12.6.12. It is the argument of the petitioner no.6 that from the date of communication i.e., 22.5.12 the second option, i.e., of 12.6.12 is also within the period of limitation, therefore, it cannot be refused to be accepted as received beyond the cutoff date. In counter to the said argument it is contended by the other side that within the date of knowledge the option ought to be submitted within one month which he has already submitted on 1.5.12. However, the subsequent option dated 12.6.12 cannot be said to be within time so specified in the note appended to the format. 7. In counter to the said argument it is contended by the other side that within the date of knowledge the option ought to be submitted within one month which he has already submitted on 1.5.12. However, the subsequent option dated 12.6.12 cannot be said to be within time so specified in the note appended to the format. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and looking to the nature of the Scheme which specifies the submission of the option forms for the extended age of retirement, the date of knowledge is not relevant but such option is required to be sent through the departmental head as per the last paragraph of annexure P/6 as well as annexure P/7 both. In the present case, the date of communication of the letter of the Power Generating Company vide annexure P/7 is not disputed which is dated 22.5.12. However, from the said date if admittedly the option has been received by the Department on 12.6.12, then it ought to have been accepted within a period of limitation and cannot be rejected for the said reason. 8. In view of the aforesaid, petitioner no. 6 is also entitled to continue till the extended age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years and entitled to get similar relief like other petitioners. 9. In W.P no. 3157/14, the communication was made to the petitioner vide letter annexure P/3 dated 8.6.12 and the option has been submitted on the same date, therefore, the said option be treated within the period of one month from the date of communication and cannot be discarded as per the order impugned dated 20.1.14. Similar is the position in W.P. No.15220/13 because in the same communication dated 8.6.12 Shri Ramayan Prasad Tiwari and Smt. Rekha Gupta were asked to submit their options and Smt. Rekha Gupta in W.P. No. 15220/13 has submitted her option on 11.6.12, i.e. within a period of one month. The said factual position has not been disputed in the return filed by the respondents. In such circumstances, petitioners in both the petitions are entitled to continue till attaining the extended age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years with all consequential benefits. 10. In W.P No. 3468/14 the communication was made as per letter dated 22.5.12 and the option was submitted on 6.6.12. The said factual position is not disputed in the return filed by the respondents. 10. In W.P No. 3468/14 the communication was made as per letter dated 22.5.12 and the option was submitted on 6.6.12. The said factual position is not disputed in the return filed by the respondents. In that view of the matter, petitioner in this petition Shri Sudama Prasad Soni is also entitled to continue till attaining the extended age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years with all consequential benefits. 11. In W.P No. 2898/14 petitioner Vijay Kumar Kanojiya has served the option form through the Executive Engineer, Sagar Division, Sagar on 28.6.12, who submitted his option on 3.7.12, as averred in para 5.5 of the writ petition which is not disputed by the respondents rebutting the said facts. In such circumstances, option of the petitioner was within a period of one month from the date of its communication. Similarly, in the case of Mahindra Pratap Singh in W.P No. 4460/14, the communication was made on 22.5.12 and the option was submitted on 6.6. 12 annexure P/8. The said factual position has not been disputed in the return filed by the respondents. H0wever, from the date of communication the option has been submitted within one month. In such circumstances, petitioners are entitled to continue till attaining the extended age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years with all consequential benefits. 12. In W.P No. 20902/12 in the case of Amrit Lal Gupta, the facts are slightly different. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.12. As per annexure R/3 he applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.5.12. Prior to acceptance of the same, on 19.5.12 request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement was made. He submitted the option to continue till the extended age of 60 years as per annexure R/6 on 24.5.12 which was returned back vide letter dated 6.6.12 indicating the fact that the option has been received after one month from the date of the letter and the communication regarding voluntary retirement has also been returned back with a direction to submit fresh option. Accordingly, he submitted fresh option on 5.7.12, within one month from the letter dated 6.6.12 annexure P/3, which has not been considered because the subsequent option was found to be submitted after a month and he was retired w.e.f. 31.7.12. In view of the judgment in the case of Narmada Prasad Tiwari (Supra) he was required to submit option within a month from a date of communication. In view of the judgment in the case of Narmada Prasad Tiwari (Supra) he was required to submit option within a month from a date of communication. However, looking to the aforesaid facts, it is clear that his earlier option dated 24.5.12 has been returned because it was submitted after a month from the date of the circular dated 24.4.12 and as per the letter dated 6.6.12 his application for voluntary retirement has also been returned back asking for a fresh option, which he submitted on 5.7.12 within a month from the date of communication, however, the option dated 24.5.12 and 5.7.12 cannot be rejected on account of being submitted after one month from the date of the letter, therefore, said communication is unsustainable in law and he is also entitled to continue upto 60 years of age with all consequential benefits. 14. Consequent upon discussion made hereinabove, all the aforesaid petitions are hereby allowed. The communication made by the respondents Board to not to continue the petitioners on the ground of either submitting the option after the cutoff date or its rejection are hereby quashed. It is directed that all the petitioners are entitled to continue till the extended age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years, with all other consequential benefits. Some of the petitioners are continuing under the interim order passed by this court, however, they shall continue till the extended age of superannuation and those who are not in employment, they be reinstated in service within one month and be continued to serve till the extended age of superannuation i.e., 60 years. In the case of Amrit Lal Gupta, rejection of the option is not found in accordance with law; therefore, he is also entitled to all consequential benefits for such extended age. The respondent Board is directed to take appropriate action in view of the directions given hereinabove. 15. With the aforesaid directions, all the aforesaid petitions stands disposed of.