JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Roy, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Sri. Kedar Nath Singh-petitioner of Writ Petition No. 9483 (SS) of 2016 claims entitlement to continue in service on extension/expansion under Regulation 35 of the U.P. Board of Secondary Sanskrit Education (Appointment and Conditions of service of Head of Institution, teachers and other employees of Institution) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations, 2009'). 3. As both the aforesaid writ petitions involve similar facts and issues, therefore, they have been clubbed and heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 4. The relevant facts of the case in brief are as under: - Sri. Kedar Nath Singh was employed as an Assistant Lecturer in the respondent No. 7 college which is a Sanskrit Institution for teaching Intermediate section and the pay scale was payable in the L.T. Grade. The date of birth of Sri. Kedar Nath Singh is 03.01.1951. As per Regulation 35 of the Regulations, 2009 a teacher is to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation which is prescribed as 62 years. Sri. Singh attained the age of superannuation on 02.01.2013. Prior to attaining the age of superannuation the case of Sri. Singh for grant of two years extension/expansion of service account of Sri. Singh having been awarded a National Award on 05.09.2012, under the provisions of Government order dated 06.05.1982, was initiated and was under process and a resolution was passed by the Committee of Management of the college on 23.12.2012 recommending the same stating that he was medically and mentally fit. However, admitted fact is that before attaining the age of superannuation or by the said date no order could be passed by the State Government for grant of such extension/expansion of service, which, under the Government order dated 06.05.1982 was not automatic, but, subject to satisfaction of pre-requisites and conditions mentioned in the said Government order as also the subsequent Government orders dated 04.12.1986, 23.10.1991, 27.06.1994 and 29.06.2004 and a consideration by a Committee for the said purpose. Nevertheless Sri. Singh continued to serve the college even after 02.01.2013 till 30.06.2013 and with effect from this date he was granted two years extension/expansion of service vide order dated 29.06.2013 in terms of aforesaid Government orders. Nevertheless Sri. Singh continued to serve the college even after 02.01.2013 till 30.06.2013 and with effect from this date he was granted two years extension/expansion of service vide order dated 29.06.2013 in terms of aforesaid Government orders. Thereafter, another Government order dated 30.06.2015 was issued in pursuance to a Government order dated 30.09.2014 granting extension/expansion of service upto 65 years age subject to the limitations and conditions mentioned in the Government order dated 06.05.1982, 04.12.1986, 23.10.1991, 24.06.1994, 29.06.2004 and 30.09.2013. 5. In view of the above Sri. Singh continued to serve the college and attained the age of 65 years on 02.01.2016. In the interregnum, the Director, Secondary Education issued an order dated 31.12.2015 passed on the representation of Sri. Singh for grant of extension/expansion of service till the end of academic session, granting such extension/expansion till the end of academic session allegedly as per Rules considering paragraph 4 of the Government order dated 30.06.2015. Consequential order was issued by the District Inspector of Schools on 04.01.2016 in pursuance of which petitioner continuance on expansion/extension of service even after attaining the ate of 65 years. 6. This Government order was challenged by one Sri. R.P. Gupta claiming locus on the ground that it is only after Sri. Kedar Nath Singh demits the office his post will fall vacant for grant of promotional pay scale as the said benefit is limited to 20% posts of the said cadre and it is only then that he will become entitled to get the said promotional pay scale but on account of illegal extension/expansion of service this benefit admissible to him had been delayed and the petitioner had been deprived of the said benefit, therefore, being aggrieved he preferred the writ petition bearing No. 599 (SS) of 2016 challenging the aforesaid orders dated 31.12.2015 and 04.01.2016 and the resolution of the committee of Management of the same date. 7. Notices were issued to the parties. The matter was adjourned several times at the behest of Sri. Kedar Nath Singh who is respondent No. 9 in the said writ petition. The order dated 14.03.2016 was passed giving him last opportunity to address and assist the Court. Ultimately on 17.03.2016 an interim order was passed. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 21.03.2016 restraining Sri. Singh from functioning treating him as having attained the age of superannuation on 02.01.2016. The order dated 14.03.2016 was passed giving him last opportunity to address and assist the Court. Ultimately on 17.03.2016 an interim order was passed. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 21.03.2016 restraining Sri. Singh from functioning treating him as having attained the age of superannuation on 02.01.2016. 8. Being aggrieved the petitioner herein filed a writ petition before the Court bearing No. 8614(SS) of 2016 challenging the said order. As this Court had heard writ petition, it distinctly remembers that during the course of argument the court had desired to see the orders by which two years extension/expansion of service had been granted to Sri. Kedar Nath Singh i.e. 29.06.2013 which was not filed by him but thereafter an application for withdrawal of the said writ petition was filed which was allowed on 28.04.2016 with liberty to file a fresh petition. 9. Based on such liberty Writ Petition No. 9483 (SS) of 2016 was filed inter-alia challenging the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 21.03.2016 as also the Government order dated 29.06.2013 to the extent the words/figure "30.06.2013 sey" were mentioned therein seeking entitlement to continue till the end of academic session even after attaining the age of 65 years. This Government order was not challenged in the earlier writ petition No. 8614 (SS) of 2016. 10. The contention of Sri. Salil Kumar Srivastava is that under the Government order dated 06.05.1982, two years extension was to be granted from the date of attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, grant of such extension with effect from 30.06.2013 vide Government order dated 29.06.2013 was in contravention of the aforesaid Government order. The said Government order, according to him, contained a beneficent provision, therefore, it should be liberally construed and accordingly the order dated 29.09.2016 should be read as having retrospective effect from even from 02.01.2013 and not 30.06.2013. He relied upon the judgment in the case of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and others reported in (1994) 5 SCC 593 and Provash Chandra Dalui and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another reported in 1989 Supp (1) SCC 487. He also relied upon the case of Nagaland Senior Government Employees Welfare Association and others v. State of Nagaland and others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 643 to contend that superannuation means discharge from service on account of age. He also relied upon the case of Nagaland Senior Government Employees Welfare Association and others v. State of Nagaland and others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 643 to contend that superannuation means discharge from service on account of age. Retirement also means superannuation and vis-a-vis he also contended that there is no absolute proposition in law nor any variable rule in service jurisprudence that an employee is to retire from public employment on account of age alone. He tried to distinguish the judgments of this court dated 03.011.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 6246 (SS) of 2015 Amar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. And others as affirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 560 of 2016 vide judgment dated 30.11.2015 on the ground that in the said case the litigant had availed the benefit of extension of service under Regulation 21 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 till the end of academic session and thereafter he had been awarded the National/State Award in pursuance to which he was granted extension vide Government order dated 06.05.1982 etc. therefore, he was held as not entitled to further extension under Regulation 21 after attaining the age of 65 years whereas in the instant case Sri. Kedar Nath Singh had been awarded National Award prior to attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, he was entitled to such extension under the Government order dated 06.05.1982 w.e.f. 02.01.2013 and as such the benefit of extension of service till the end of academic session under Regulation 35 of the Regulations 2009 cannot be said to have been availed by him earlier, therefore, it was admissible w.e.f. 02.01.2016 till the end of academic session. 11. Pt. S. Chandra learned counsel appearing for Sri. R.P. Gupta submitted that the benefit of the Government order dated 06.05.1982 was not automatic extension of service. One of the conditions was that the teacher should be in service on the date of grant of such extension. If contention of Sri. Kedar Nath Singh is to be believed then in the absence of an order extending his service by two years, he stood retired on 02.01.2013 and cannot be treated in service thereafter, therefore, the order dated 29.06.2013 could not have been passed at all but such construction would be against the factual scenario. The fact of the matter is that in the absence of such extension Sri. The fact of the matter is that in the absence of such extension Sri. Kedar Nath Singh's services should automatically extended till the end of academic session. Under Regulation 35 and thereafter further extension of two years was granted under the Government order dated 06.05.1982 etc. vide order dated 29.06.2013 w.e.f. 30.06.2013 which was accepted by him, therefore, firstly, it is not open to him now to challenge the same, and secondly, nor is he entitled to the benefit of extension of service till the end of academic session under Regulation 35 for the second time. Sri. Singh cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. In this regard he relied upon the cases of Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore v. Hornor Resources (International) Company Limited reported in (2011) 10 SCC 420 Nagubai Ammal and others v. B. Shama Rao and others reported in AIR 1956 SC 593 . He also contended that now the academic session had changed and it had started from 1st of April of the year. Earlier it started from 1st of July of the year. In this regard he relied upon the document annexed as Annexure to the rejoinder affidavit in Writ Petition No. 599 (SS) of 2016. In response to the letter relied upon by Sri. Kedar Nath Singh annexed at page 53 of Writ Petition No. 9483 (SS) of 2016. 12. The learned standing counsel has also contended that there is no provision for grant of extension of service till the end of academic session under Regulation 35 even after attaining the age of 65 years. This is also not the purport of the Government order dated 30.06.2013. 13. As far as the locus of R.P. Gupta is concerned in view of averments made in Writ petition No. 599 (SS) of 2016 specially paragraphs 13 to 19 it cannot be said that he did not have locus standi to file the said writ petition. Further more, Sri. Kedar Nath Singh himself has filed subsequent Writ Petition No. 9483 (SS) of 2016 asserting his right to continue on extension of service till the end of academic session under Regulation 35 even after attaining the age of 65 years ergo, the question of Sri. R.P. Gupta of locus standi pales into insignificance as this is a question which is to be decided in Sri. Kedar Nath Singh's writ petition also. 14. R.P. Gupta of locus standi pales into insignificance as this is a question which is to be decided in Sri. Kedar Nath Singh's writ petition also. 14. It is admitted by Sri Singh that his date of birth of is 03.01.1995. Regulation 35 of Regulations 2009 reads as under: - "The age of superannuation of Head of Institution and teachers shall be 62 years and the age of superannuation of the other employees shall be 60 years. If the date of retirement of a Head of the Institution or teacher falls between 2nd July and 30th June, he shall be given automatic expansion of service till 30th June of the year unless he gives in writing the denial of the same." 15. As per the said regulation a teacher is to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. The age of superannuation is prescribed as 62 years. Thus, the date of attaining the age of superannuation by a teacher shall be the date of his retirement. As per second part of regulation 35, if the date of retirement of a teacher falls between 2nd July and 30th June he shall be given automatic extension of service till 30th June unless he gives in writing a denial of the same. Thus, this automatic expansion/extension of service till 30th June i.e. end of the year of academic session is consequent to "the date of retirement" of a teacher falling between the aforesaid dates. As stated herein above the date of retirement of a teacher is 62 years and it is this date which is being referred for the purposes of expansion/extension of service till the end of academic session and no other date. It is not in dispute that Sri. Singh did not forgo the said benefit available under Regulation 35 by giving it in writing on or before attaining the age of superannuation/retirement i.e. 02.01.2013. it is also not in dispute that Sri. Singh attained the age of superannuation/retirement i.e. 62 years and his date of retirement was 02.01.2013. It is not in dispute that Sri. Singh did not forgo the said benefit available under Regulation 35 by giving it in writing on or before attaining the age of superannuation/retirement i.e. 02.01.2013. it is also not in dispute that Sri. Singh attained the age of superannuation/retirement i.e. 62 years and his date of retirement was 02.01.2013. It is true that the Government order dated 06.05.1982 speaks of two years extension of service after attaining the age of superannuation to National and State Awardee, subject of course to the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein but this Government order has been modified from time to time viz the Government order dated 31.03.1984, 23.10.1991, 19.12.2002, 04.02.2004, 29.06.2004, 06.07.2004 and 30.09.2013 copies of which have been annexed with the instructions provided to the learned standing counsel which had been placed before the court during the course of the arguments and are available on record. One of the Government orders dated 30.09.2013 refers to an earlier Government order dated 24.01.2003 and contains a recital that the benefit available under the Government order dated 06.05.1982 is hedged with certain conditions relating to physical and mental fitness of the teacher and the Government order dated 24.01.2003 contains stipulation that medical fitness certificate of the teachers should not be more than 6 months old w.e.f. their superannuation/retirement after taking into consideration the extension of service till the end of academic session. Relevant para of the Government order dated 30.09.2013 is quoted here in below: - %hnd1%"mIiq: Dr fo"k;d 'kklkukns'k la[;k 1772@15&14&30@67@71 fnukad 06 ebZ] 1982 ,oa 'kklukns'k la[;k&3280@15&8& 2002&2006@20@2002 Vh0lh0 fnukad 24-01-2003 dh vksj vkidk /;ku vkd`"V djrs gq, eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd mDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 06-05-1982 esa izns'k ds jk"V~h;@jkT; v/;kid iqjLdkj izkIr f'k{kdksa dks nks o"kksZa ds lsok foLrkj dh O;oLFkk bl 'krZ ds lkFk nh xbZ gS fd og 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld n`f"V ls iw.kZr% LoLFk gksa rFkk 'kklukns'k fnukad 24-01-2003 ;g O;oLFkk gS dh lEcfU/kr f'k{kdksa dk LokLFk izek.k i= l=kar ykHk lfgr mudh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ gksuh dh frfFk ls 6 ekg ls vf/kd iqjkus ugha gksus pkfg,A mDr ls Li"V gS fd jk"V~h;@jkT; v/;kid iqjLdkj izkIr f'k{kdksa dks l=kar ykHk ds i'pkr~ nks o"kZ dk lsok foLrkj nsus ds fy, f'k{kd dk LokLFk cgqr gh egRoiw.kZ gSA f'k{kd dk 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld LokLFk ,slk gksuk pkfg, fd og iw.kZ {kerk ls nks o"kksZa rd f'k{k.k dk;Z dj lds] fdUrq lsokfoLrkj izLrko ds lkFk miyC/k djk, tkus okys LokLFk izek.k&i=ksa ls ;g Li"V ugha gksrk gS fd f'k{kdksa dh dkSu&dkSu lh tkWap djkbZ tkrh gS ftlds vk/kkj ij mUgsa iw.kZ LoLFk gksus dk izek.k&i= fn;k tkrk gSA"%hnd2% 16. Second para of the said Government order categorically states that in view of the aforesaid Government order it is evident that two years extension is available to National/State awardee teachers after grant of extension/expansion of service till the end of academic session, if he is medically fit. The Government order dated 30.09.2014 issued thereafter also reiterates that such extension of service are subject to conditions mentioned in the Government orders referred to here in above, therefore, these conditions were applicable even prior to 30.09.2013 and also at the time of Sri. Singh's attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 02.01.2013 and prior to it. In any case the fact of the matter is that extension of service under the aforesaid Government order is no automatic but is dependent upon an order being issued by the competent authority of the State Government in terms of the said Government order, especially, Government order dated 23.10.1991, under which a committee has been constituted for the said purpose. It is a fact that no such decision had been taken by 02.01.2013 for grant of two years extension of service to Sri. Singh. It is also a fact that Sri. It is a fact that no such decision had been taken by 02.01.2013 for grant of two years extension of service to Sri. Singh. It is also a fact that Sri. Singh continued to work in the college even after 02.01.2013, therefore, in this factual scenario the irresistible conclusion is that this was only on account of 'automatic extension of service' under Regulation 35 of Regulations 2009 as there was no other provision under which he could have continued in service. There was no extension of his service under Government order dated 06.05.1982 etc. He was granted further extension of service of two years under the aforesaid Government order (not under the Regulation 35) w.e.f the actual date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2013 after availing the benefit of automatic extension/expansion of service till the end of academic session vide order dated 29.06.2013 in terms of above mentioned Government order which he readily accepted without any demur. Having availed the benefit of automatic expansion of service till 30th June 2013 Sri. Singh is not entitled to the said benefit for a second time after attaining the age of 65 years, consequent to a further extension of service up to the said age under Government order dated 30.06.2015 in terms of Government order dated 30.09.2014 under which the teachers who had been granted two years extension would be entitled to extension of service up to 65 years. The benefit of Regulation 35 is available only once and cannot be made available ad-infitum as has been observed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 560 of 2015 decided on 30.11.2015 arising out of Writ Petition No. 6246 (SS) of 2015 wherein a similar controversy based on Regulation 21 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 had been considered. The fact that Sri. Singh has received National Award prior to attaining the age of superannuation i.e. in the year 2012, is not much of consequence. As already stated above automatic extension of service under Regulation 35 is available, if the "date of retirement" of the teacher falls within the date mentioned therein. The fact that Sri. Singh has received National Award prior to attaining the age of superannuation i.e. in the year 2012, is not much of consequence. As already stated above automatic extension of service under Regulation 35 is available, if the "date of retirement" of the teacher falls within the date mentioned therein. The date of retirement referred in Regulation 35 is the one arrived at based on the prescription of the age of superannuation contained therein i.e. 62 years and not any subsequent actual date of retirement consequent to any extension of service including that under the Government order referred to herein above. The Director, Secondary Education erred in passing the order dated 31.12.2015 mechanically, though, there was nothing in the Government order dated 30.06.2015 to justify a second extension of service till the end of academic session. Paragraph 4 of the Government order dated 30.06.2015 reads as under: %hnd1%"mDr dehZ lsok foLrkj dh vof/k esa f'k{kd in ij gh rSukr jgsaxsA"%hnd2% 17. As far as the challenge to Government order dated 29.06.2013 is concerned Sri. Singh having availed the benefit of said Government order without any demur cannot turn round and challenge the same on the ground that the said benefit ought to have been made available w.e.f the date of superannuation i.e. 02.01.2013. Further more, in view of subsequent Government orders the intention of the Government order was very clear that the extension of service for two years was to be granted after superannuation, but, taking into consideration the expansion of service till the end of academic session. Even otherwise, assuming for the sake of discussion that it was not so, the fact of the matter is, that Sri. Singh did avail the automatic expansion of service after 02.01.2013 in the absence of any decision under the Government order dated 06.05.1982 as modified from time to time and was granted the benefit of the said Government order only w.e.f. 30.06,2013, therefore, now he cannot make a volte face and challenge the said order which has already benefited him. If at all he should have approached the Court prior to attaining the age of superannuation when the required decision was not taken under Government order dated 06.05.1982 etc. or when the Government order dated 29.06.2013 was issued, but, not at this stage. 18. The question of change in the academic session is not of much consequence. 19. If at all he should have approached the Court prior to attaining the age of superannuation when the required decision was not taken under Government order dated 06.05.1982 etc. or when the Government order dated 29.06.2013 was issued, but, not at this stage. 18. The question of change in the academic session is not of much consequence. 19. For the reasons aforesaid the Writ Petition No. 9483 (SS) of 2016 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 20. Writ Petition No. 599 (SS) of 2016 is allowed. It is, however, made clear that if Sri. Kedar Nath Singh had received any salary for the period he had actually worked after attaining the age of 65 years, the same shall not be recovered. Petition dismissed.