ORDER : Anand Pathak, J. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, according to which, respondents are not releasing the pension and other retiral benefits of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to be retained in Government service only upto the age of 60 years, whereas according to petitioner he was entitled to work in the department uptil the age of 62 years, which he did. Therefore, now the respondents cannot take away pension and other retiral benefits treating the age of superannuation of petitioner as 60 years. 2. According to counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was initially appointed as supervisor, adult education in the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department on 26-03-1983. Later on, services of supervisors of adult education had been absorbed in School Education Department and petitioner was absorbed in year 2002 in the School Education Department. Since then, he was working as teacher in the School Education Department and therefore, was entitled for all the benefits attached to the teacher of the School Education Department including the age of superannuation as 62 years. He also referred the order dated 30-01-2014 passed in writ petition No.13763/2013 and sought parity. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. According to him, petitioner had not completed 20 years of services, therefore, as per the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 2011 as well as Fundamental Rule 56 he is not entitled for any relief. He prayed for dismissal of petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From perusal of pleadings and documents, it appears that the petitioner has been initially appointed as supervisor in Panchayat and Social Welfare Department and later on vide order dated 06-01-1998, person like petitioner were directed to be absorbed in the School Education Department and in pursuance to which vide order dated 18-09-2002 petitioner and other similarly situated persons were absorbed in the School Education Department as Upper Division Teacher and since then, the petitioner was working as teacher in the School Education Department. 6. Amendment made in M.P. Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshki Aayu) Dwitiya Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 1998 is worth consideration in this regard which reads as under: "2. 6. Amendment made in M.P. Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshki Aayu) Dwitiya Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 1998 is worth consideration in this regard which reads as under: "2. Amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 as substituted by Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Act No. 29 of 1967- In Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (No. 29 of 1967) after sub-rule (1) of rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the following sub-rule shall be inserted namely; (1-a) subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) every Government Teacher shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty two years; Provided that a Government teacher whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty two years. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub rule "Teacher" means a Government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in Government educational institution including technical or medical educational institution in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appointment and shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned School/Collegiate/Technical/Medical education service". 7. While interpreting the said provision in almost identical matter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Padam Kumar v. State of M.P. and others had allowed the writ petition preferred by the said petitioner, treating him to be a teacher and found him entitled to continue upto 62 years of age with all consequential benefits. The said order has been put to challenge in Writ Appeal No.499/2014 which got dismissed vide order dated 23-11-2015 by the Division Bench. The review petition preferred by the State also got dismissed on the ground that SLP filed by the State in number of writ petitions, have been dismissed, out of which one of the orders is dated 18- 07-2016 passed in Petition (S) for Special Leave to Appeal (CC No.12740/2016). Thus, the controversy has been concluded at the apex level. 8. The review petition preferred by the State also got dismissed on the ground that SLP filed by the State in number of writ petitions, have been dismissed, out of which one of the orders is dated 18- 07-2016 passed in Petition (S) for Special Leave to Appeal (CC No.12740/2016). Thus, the controversy has been concluded at the apex level. 8. Considering the fact situation of the case wherein the petitioner is similarly situated vis-a-vis Padam Kumar {petitioner of writ petition No.13763/2013 (s)}, fact which could not be distinguished by the counsel for the respondents, thus, the petition is allowed. Another aspect which needs consideration is that the petitioner in the present case has worked upto 62 years of age. The respondents have allowed to continue him upto the age of 62 years, therefore, on this count also he is entitled for grant of pension and other benefits treating his age of retirement as 62 years. 9. In view of the above discussion, maintaining the parity, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant all the benefits to the petitioner and disburse pension and all other retiral benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law treating his age of retirement as 62 years. 10. Petition stands allowed.