JUDGMENT : ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against a Government Order dated 24.8.2017, which provides that a teacher, who is granted extension in service upto the age of 65 years pursuant to Government Order dated 30.12.2014 would retire on the last day of the calender month in which he attains the age of 65 years. Petitioner asserts that such a teacher is entitled to continue till the conclusion of academic session, and curtailment of his term at the end of the calender month is contrary to the specific provisions in applicable laws and is otherwise opposed to the cause of education. A prayer is therefore made to command the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as Principal of Gandhi Smarak Inter College Sahabganj, Chandauli, till the end of academic session 2018-19 i.e. 31st of March, 2019, with all consequential benefits. 2. At the outset, it would be worth noticing the two Government Orders with which this Court is concerned in this petition. 2. At the outset, it would be worth noticing the two Government Orders with which this Court is concerned in this petition. The Government Order dated 24.8.2017 and the Government Order dated 30.12.2014 are thus reproduced hereinafter:- **f'k{kk ¼8½ vuqHkkx % y[kuÅ% fnukad 24 vxLr] 2017 fo"k; %& izns'k ds jk"Vªh;@jkT; v/;kid iqjLdkj izkIr f'k{kdksa dks lsUVªy cksMZ vkQ lsds.Mªh ,twds'ku ds ldqZyj la[;k&22 fnukad 18-02-2014 esa nh xbZ O;oLFkk ds vk/kkj ij 65 o"kZ dh vk;q gsrq lsok foLrkj ds laca/k esa fuxZr 'kklukns'k fnukad 30-12-2014 esa la'kks/kuA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i=&ls0iz0@928@2017&18] fnukad 23-08-2017 dk d`i;k lUnHkZ xzg.k djsA 2- bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd 'kklukns'k la[;k 2033@15-08-2014&3078@2014] fnukad 30-12-2014 }kjk jk"Vªh;@jkT; f'k{kd iqjLdkj izkIr f'k{kdkas dks 65 o"kZ dh vk;q gsrq lsok foLrkj fn, tkus dh O;oLFkk gSA mDr ds dze esa lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr jk"Vªh;@jkT; v/;kid iqjLdkj izkIr gksus ds vk/kkj ij izns'k ds lsok foLrkj izkIr f'k{kdksa] ftudh 65 o"kZ dh vk;q ekg ds e/; ds fnukad dks iw.kZ gksrh gS] mUgsa 'kklukns'k fnukad 30&12&2014 esa fu/kkZfjr O;oLFkk ds vUrxZr ml ekg dh vafre frfFk ds vijkUg dks lsokfuo`Rr fd;s tkus dh Jh jkT;iky lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA 3- 'kklukns'k fnukad 30-12-2014 dh 'ks"k 'krsZ ;Fkkor jgsaxhA &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& f'k{kk ¼8½ vuqHkkx % y[kuÅ% fnukad 30 fnlEcj] 2014 fo"k; %& izns'k ds jk"Vªh;@jkT; v/;kid iqjLdkj izkIr f'k{kdksa dks lsUVªy cksMZ vkQ lsds.Mªh ,twds'ku ds ldqZyj la[;k&22 fnukad 18-02-2014 esa nh xbZ O;oLFkk ds vk/kkj ij lsok foLrkj dh vof/k esa o`f)A egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d vkids i= la[;k&lk0¼1½f'k0@3924@2014&15] fnukad 25-8-2014 dk d`i;k lUnZHk xzg.k djasA 2- izns'k ds jk"Vªh;@jkT; iqjLdkj izkIr v/;kidksa dks mudh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ds i'pkr nks o"kZ dk lsok foLrkj fd;s tkus dh O;oLFkk 'kklukns'k la[;k &1772@15&¼14½&30 ¼67½@17] fnukad 6&5&1982 }kjk iznku dh xbZ gS ftlls jktdh; fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa@iz/kkukpk;ksZ dh lsokfuo`fRr vk;q 62 o"kZ ,oa v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa@iz/kkukpk;ksZa dh lsokfuo`fRr vk;q 64 o"kZ gksrh gSA bu nksuksa Js.kh ds f'k{kdksa dks 'kklukns'k fnukad 06 ebZ] 1982] 04 fnlEcj 1986] 23 vDVwcj]1991] 27 twu] 1994] 29 twu] 2004 rFkk 30 flrEcj] 2013 eas of.kZr izfrcU/k ,oa 'krksZ ds lkFk mDr ykHk iznku fd;k x;k gSA 3- vr% bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funZs'k gqvk gS fd lE;d fopkjksijkUr lsUVªy cksMZ vkQ lsds.Mªh ,twds'ku ds ldqZyj la[;k&22 fnukad 18&2&2014 esa dh xbZ O;oLFkk ds dze esa izns'k ds jktdh; ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa@v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds jk"Vªh;@jkT; v/;kid iqjLdkj izkIr f'k{kdksa dks mudh mRd`"V lsok] mRre LokLF; ,oa mRre dk;Z vkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr f'k{kdksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr 65 o"kZ dh vk;q gksus rd ds fy, lsok foLrkj fn;s tkus dh Lohd`fr Jh jkT;iky lg"kZ iznku djrs gSA mDr O;oLFkk dk ykHk ,sls f'k{kdksa dks Hkh fn;k tk;sxk ftUgsa 'kklukns'k fnukad 6&5&1982 fd izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj nks o"kZ dk lsok foLrkj iznku fd;k tk pqdk gS ,oa os lEizfr dk;Zjr gSaA vf/ko"kZrk lsok dk ykHk mijksDr izLrj&2 ij ik=rk fo"k;d 'kklukns'kksa ds izfrcU/kksa ds vUrxZr gksxkA 4- ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh; la[;k &bZ&11@1499@nl&2014] fnukad 26 fnlEcj 2014 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls fuxZr fd, tk jgs gSA Hkonh;] ¼ftrsUnz dqekj½ izeq[k lfpo** 3. The aforesaid two government orders are required to be interpreted with reference to Regulation 21, Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1921') which reads as under:- ^^vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid] v/;kidksa dk vf/ko"kZ o; 62 o"kZ gksxkA QyLo:i 58 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk ij feyus okys lsokfuo`fRrd ykHk vc 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij rFkk 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus okys lsokfuo`fRrd ykHk 62 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij vuqeU; gksxkA ;fn fdlh vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid vFkok v/;kid dk mi;qZDr vf/ko"kZ o; 2 vizSy vkSj 30 ekpZ ds e/; es fdlh frfFk dks idM+rk gS rks mls] ml n'kk dks NksM+dj tcfd og Lo;a lsok foLrkj.k u ysus gsrq fyf[kr lwpuk vius vf/ko"kZ o; dh frfFk ls 2 ekg iwoZ ns] 31 ekpZ rd lsok foLrkj.k Loeso iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxk] rkfd xzh"ekodk'k ds mijkUr tqykbZ esa izfrLFkkuh dh O;oLFkk gks ldsA blds vfrfjDr lsok foLrkj.k dsoy mUgh fof'k"V n'kkvksa esa iznku fd;k tk ldsxk tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk;sA ;fn fdlh fyfid vFkok prqFkZ oxhZ; deZpkfj;ksa ds vf/ko"kZ o; ds frfFk fdlh ekg ds e/; fdlh frfFk dks iM+rh gS rks mldk lsok foLrkj.k ml ekl dh vfUre frfFk rd iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxkA fdUrq ;fn fdlh deZpkjh dh lsokfuo`fRr dh frfFk fdlh ekg igyh rkjh[k dks iMs+ rks mls iwoZorhZ ekl dh vfUre frfFk dks lsokfuo`fRr dj fn;k tk;sxkA 4. In the facts of the present case the writ petitioner was selected to the post of Principal by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board and placed in Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Sahabganj, Chandauli (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution'), an Institution recognized under the Act of 1921. Provisions of the U.P. High Schools And Intermediate Colleges (Payment Of Salaries Of Teachers And Other Employees) Act, 1971 as well as U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1971 and the 'Act of 1982') are also applicable upon the Institution. Prior to his selection as Principal the petitioner served as Assistant Teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School and was later promoted as Lecturer on 29.12.1981. He continued as such till his joining as Principal in the Institution concerned. 5. Petitioner's date of birth is 2.4.1953. Prior to his selection as Principal the petitioner served as Assistant Teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School and was later promoted as Lecturer on 29.12.1981. He continued as such till his joining as Principal in the Institution concerned. 5. Petitioner's date of birth is 2.4.1953. By virtue of Regulation 21, Chapter III of the Act of 1921, he would have attained the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on 1.4.2015. On account of Regulation 21, he would have continued till the end of academic session 2014-15. By virtue of Government Order dated 25.5.2015 his continuance by virtue of sessions benefit would have been till 30th June, 2015. The Government Order dated 25.5.2015 is extracted hereinafter:- **f'k{kk ¼8½ vuqHkkx % y[kuÅ% fnukad 25 ebZ] 2015 fo"k; %& v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa 'kklu }kjk ykxw fd;s x;s u;s 'kSf{kd l= ,oa mlds vuqlkj f'k{kdksa ds lsokfuo`fRr ds laca/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fc"k;d vkids i=kad &lkekU ¼1½ r`rh;@Mh0bZ0@128@2014&15] fnukad 8&5&2015 ds lUnHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funZs'k gqvk gS fd lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr v'kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa 'kSf{kd l= 2014&15 esa f'k{kdksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q mudh tUefrfFk ds vk/kkj vFkok jkT;@jk"Vªh; iqjLdkj izkIr djus ds vk/kkj ij 30 twu] 2015 gS] ,sls v/;kidksa dks 'kSf{kd l= ifjorZu ds vk/kkj ij 31 ekpZ] 2015 dks lsokfuo`Rr u dj 30 twu] 2015 rd lsok esa cuk;s j[krs gq, 30 twu] 2015 dks lsokfuo`Rr djrs gq, lsokfuo`fRr ykHk fn;s tkus rFkk ftu v/;kidksa dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q tUefrfFk ds vk/kkj ij ,oa jkT;@jk"Vh; iqjLdkj izkIr gksus ds vk/kkj ij 30 twu] 2016 gS] mUgsa vkxkeh l= 2015&16 esa 'kSf{kd l= dh lekfIr 31 ekpZ] 2016 dks lsokfuo`Rr ekudj muds lsokfuo`fRr ykHk fn;s tkus dh Jh jkT;iky egksn; lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA d`i;k rn~uqlkj leLr lacaf/kr dks vxzRrj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djus gsrq vius Lrj ls funsZf'kr djus dk d"V djsaA** 6. Petitioner, however, was allowed to continue beyond 30th June, 2015 as he had been awarded national award for teachers, in recognition of his valuable services to the community as a teacher of outstanding merit in the year 2001. A specific Government Order was issued on 24.6.2015 permitting the petitioner to continue as the Principal of the Institution concerned till he attained the age of 65 years. 7. A specific Government Order was issued on 24.6.2015 permitting the petitioner to continue as the Principal of the Institution concerned till he attained the age of 65 years. 7. Prior to 12th of June, 2015 the sessions benefit was available to the Principal, Head of the Institution and the teacher who were to retire between 2nd of July and 30th June. These dates stood substituted as 2nd of April to 31st March vide Government Order dated 12th of June, 2015. All other stipulations, including the age of superannuation as 62 years, as also the grant of sessional benefit attached to it, remained unaltered. The stipulation in Regulation 21 permitting extension in service, in special cases, even after normal age of superannuation and sessions benefit, by the State Government also remained unaltered. 8. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government Order dated 30.12.2014 grants extension in service to a teacher upto the age of 65 years and that sessional benefit provided as per Regulation 21 would entitle him to continue upto to end of academic session and that such benefit cannot be curtailed. It is urged that grant of sessions benefit to a retiring teacher serves the object of providing services of a teacher till the end of the academic session, so that there is no disruption in the academic activities in the institution on account of retirement of a teacher during the mid-session. It is also argued that the Government Order dated 24.8.2017 is inconsistent with the scheme of the Act of 1921 and would otherwise be arbitrary as it would impede the academic activity in the Institution concerned. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel, Dr. Amar Nath Singh submits that grant of sessions benefit is not available to a teacher again after extension is granted to him beyond the specified age of superannuation i.e. 62 years. Learned Standing Counsel, with reference to the provisions contained in the Act of 1921 and Regulations framed thereunder submits that the Government Order dated 24.8.2017 is clearly consistent with the statutory scheme and is neither irrational nor is arbitrary. 10. Service conditions of a Principal, Head of Institution and a teacher in an Institution recognised under the Act of 1921 are regulated by Section 16-G as well as regulations framed thereunder. Regulation 21 of Chapter-III is what the Court is concerned with in this matter. 10. Service conditions of a Principal, Head of Institution and a teacher in an Institution recognised under the Act of 1921 are regulated by Section 16-G as well as regulations framed thereunder. Regulation 21 of Chapter-III is what the Court is concerned with in this matter. It clearly provides the age of superannuation for a Principal, Headmaster and Teacher to be 62 years. Unless the Principal, Headmaster and Teacher gives in writing, before two months of attaining the age of 62 years, his intention not to accept continuance in service upto the end of session, he would be entitled to continue in service upto the end of academic session. Regulation 21, in addition to above also permits extension in service, in specified conditions, as are determined by the State Government. 11. Regulation 21, therefore, can be segregated into two distinct parts. The first part prescribes the age of superannuation for the Principal, Headmaster and Teacher to which is attached the provision of sessions benefit, allowing him to continue till the end of academic session unless a written request is made to the contrary, two months prior to attaining the age of superannuation. The second part contemplates extension in service, in addition to the first part, upon conditions that are prescribed by the State Government. The sessions benefit, allowing the teacher to continue till the end of academic session under Regulation 21 is restricted only to the first part and not to the second part. Sessions benefit for the second part would be dependent upon a specific contemplation in the government order and would not be automatic unlike the first part. 12. The Government Order dated 30.12.2014 merely provides for extension in service upto the age of 65 years upon fulfillment of conditions specified therein. It does not provide for any further extension in service i.e. sessions benefit permitting continuance upto the end of the academic session. Grant of sessions benefit to continue upto the end of academic session, even after extension is granted to continue upto the age of 65 years otherwise cannot be culled out either from the Regulation 21 or any other provision of the Act or Regulations. Except to provide for extension in age upto 65 years, in aforesaid circumstances, the regulation and government order are absolutely silent regarding grant of sessions benefit. Except to provide for extension in age upto 65 years, in aforesaid circumstances, the regulation and government order are absolutely silent regarding grant of sessions benefit. In the absence of any provision in the Regulations and/or government order providing for sessions benefit to those also who are already granted extension in service upto the age of 65 years, no right is accrued to continue in service upto the end of academic session. 13. The State Government in such a situation would be well within its right to provide that extension in service granted vide Government Order dated 30.12.2014 would continue upto the end of the calender month in which the Principal or teacher attains the age of 65 years. The Government Order dated 24.8.2017 is, therefore, not found to be inconsistent with the Act, Regulations or the applicable Government Orders. Even the Government Order dated 30th December, 2014 is not inconsistent with it. Challenge laid in this petition to the Government Order dated 24.8.2017 fails. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in Shri Nath Sahai Vs. Devendra Nath Dwivedi, 2008 (8) ADJ 337 , has extensively examined the right of an adhoc/officiating Principal to continue in the Institution on account of conferment of national or state award upon a teacher. The government orders, with which this Court is concerned in this case although were not available then, but the principles laid down in the judgment would be relevant for adjudicating the issue involved herein. Paragraphs 9 to 18 of the aforesaid judgment contains observations relevant for the present purposes and are accordingly reproduced hereinafter:- 9. Regulation 21, Chapter-III provides for age of superannuation. The age of superannuation was earlier 60 years, which has been extended to 62 years. The regulation further provides that if date of superannuation of any teacher falls between 2nd July and 30th June extension of service shall be automatically treated to have been granted till 30th June, i.e., at the end of the next session so that after summer vacation a teacher be appointed in his place. The regulation further provides that apart from above extension of service be granted only on specific conditions as provided by the State Government from time to time. Regulation 21, Chapter-III is quoted below: 21. Superannuation age of Principal, Headmaster, Teacher and other employees would be 60 years. The regulation further provides that apart from above extension of service be granted only on specific conditions as provided by the State Government from time to time. Regulation 21, Chapter-III is quoted below: 21. Superannuation age of Principal, Headmaster, Teacher and other employees would be 60 years. If abovesaid superannuation age of any Principal, Headmaster and Teacher falls on any date in between 2nd July and 30th June, except in the condition when he himself, before two months of the date of superannuation, furnishes in writing the information for not seeking extension of service, extension of service up to 30th June shall be deemed to be conferred on him so that after summer vacation, substitute can be arranged in the month of July. In addition to this, extension of service could be granted only in such special cases which may be decided by the State Government. If date of superannuation of any clerk or fourth class employee falls in the middle of any month, his extension of service would be deemed to be given up to the last date of that month. But if the date of appointment of any employee falls on the first date of any month, he shall be retired on the last date of the preceding month.] 10. The extension of service of a person in employment is a concept well known to service law. After age of superannuation no employee has any right to claim continuance in service, however, the employer as per different service rules has been empowered to grant extension to services of an employee for the benefit of the organisation. It has been settled that there is no right in the employee to claim extension and it is for the employer, on fulfilment of conditions laid down, to grant extension. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. v. Jag Mohan Lal reported : 1989 Supp.(1) SCC 221 had the occasion to consider the provisions of Rule 19 of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, which provided that the competent authority may, at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of 58 years. The Apex Court considered the purpose and object of extension of service of an employee and laid down following in paragraph 11: 11. The Apex Court considered the purpose and object of extension of service of an employee and laid down following in paragraph 11: 11. Look at the language of the proviso and the purpose underlying it. The Bank may in its discretion extend the service of any officer. On what ground? For what purpose? That has been also made clear in the proviso itself. It states "should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank". The sole purpose of giving extension of service is, therefore, to promote the interest of the Bank and not to confer any benefit on the retiring officers. Incidentally the extension may benefit retired officials. But it is incorrect to state that it is a conferment of benefit or privilege on officers. The officers upon attaining the age of superannuation or putting the required number of years of service do not earn that benefit or privilege. The High Court has completely misunderstood the nature of right and purpose of the proviso. The proviso preserves discretion to the Bank. It is a discretion available with every employer, every management, State or otherwise. If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is desirable in the interest of the Bank it may allow him to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation. If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is not required beyond superannuation, it is an end of the matter. It is no reflection on the officer. It carries no stigma. 11. The extension of service is not a right given to an employee, rather it is an enabling power of the employer to utilise the services of an employee in the interest of the organisation. The provisions of Regulation 21, Chapter-III providing for granting extension to services of a teacher have been made for continuous teaching till the end of academic session so that teaching of the students due to retirement of a teacher in mid session be not disrupted. The object is clearly spelled out in Regulation 21 itself. While providing for extension of service till the end of academic session it has been specifically mentioned in the said regulation that extension shall be automatically treated up to 30th June so that after summer vacation an alternate arrangement be made. The object is clearly spelled out in Regulation 21 itself. While providing for extension of service till the end of academic session it has been specifically mentioned in the said regulation that extension shall be automatically treated up to 30th June so that after summer vacation an alternate arrangement be made. The object thus clearly indicates that it is not any kind of right conferred to a teacher but it has been provided for the benefit of the students and for the benefit of continuity of teaching. 12. The extension, which is automatically provided for to a teacher of continuance till the end of academic session and other kind of extension as referred to in Regulation 21, Chapter-III, which is to be granted by the State Government from time to time are extension in service, which have to be treated on same footing. The extension granted by Government orders issued from time to time to a teacher, who has been awarded by National/State award as a teacher is also a kind of extension after superannuation as contemplated under Regulation 21. The nature of extension and the privileges granted by above mentioned two kind of extension are one and the same. 13. At this stage, it is useful to refer to relevant Government orders, which provided for extension of the services of those teachers, who have been awarded National/State award. The State Government vide its Government order dated 6th May, 1982 provided for extension of two years of services to the teachers, who have been granted National/State award. The said Government order specifically provides in paragraph 2 that benefit of such teacher shall be available to the institution for some more time if the said teacher is physically and mentally fit. The purpose and object of the extension is clearly mentioned in the Government order, i.e., to benefit the educational institution of the services of such teacher. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. P.D. Chamoli v. State reported in had occasion to consider the Government order dated 6th May, 1982 and the scheme of extension. It is useful to refer paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment, which are quoted below: 4. The first question that arises for consideration is what the Government order dated 6th May, 1982 seeks to achieve. P.D. Chamoli v. State reported in had occasion to consider the Government order dated 6th May, 1982 and the scheme of extension. It is useful to refer paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said judgment, which are quoted below: 4. The first question that arises for consideration is what the Government order dated 6th May, 1982 seeks to achieve. For ascertaining this, it is necessary to have the language of the Government order. Relevant portion of Government order reads as follows: Uparukta bishai ki aor aapka dhyankrisht karte huye yah kahane ka nirdesh hua hai ki varsh 1977 tak pradesh ke rashtriya/rajya puraskrit adhyapakon ko unke adhiwayata/aayu ke pasehat do varsh ki sewa ka bistaran pradan kiya jata tha. Kintu Bharat sarkar ke sujhaw par varsh 1978 me in subidhaon ko wapas le liya gaya. 1. Bharat sarkar dwara is punarbichar aur vidik parikshan ke uprant yah sujhaw diya gaya hai ki shiksha ke gunatmak vikas ki dristi se yah janhit me hoga ki is prakar ke adhyapakon ko sewa ka labh shiksha sansthayon ko kuch aur samay ke liye prapt rahe yadi we saririk evam manasik dristi se purnatya swastha ho. 2. Samyak rup se vicharoparant sashan ne yah nirnay liya hai ki pradesh sa samast rashtriya evam rajya puriskrit adhyapkon ko, jo saririk evam mansik rup se purnatiya swastha hain, adhiwayata aayu ke pasehat do varsha ka sewa vistaran pradan kiya jaye. Tadnusar rajyapal mahoday is sambandh me jari kiye gaye samast adeshon ka atikraman karte huye yah aadesh dete hain ki pradesh ke samast rashtirya/rajya puraskrit adhyapakon ko yadi we saririk evam manasik dristi se purnataya swasta hai adhiwastaya aayu ke pasehat do parsh ka sewa vistaran pradan kiya jaye. Is prakar se sabhi mamle samay se uchchadesh ke liye sashan se sambandhit anubhagon ko prastut kiye jayenge aur pratyek mamle me sashan ke adesh prapta kiye jayenge. 5. From the above Government order it appears that the scheme of granting extension in service for two years after attainment of the age of superannuation was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh up to 1977 and this scheme was abandoned in the year 1978 on the directions of the Central Government. 5. From the above Government order it appears that the scheme of granting extension in service for two years after attainment of the age of superannuation was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh up to 1977 and this scheme was abandoned in the year 1978 on the directions of the Central Government. In paragraph 1 of the Government order it is mentioned that on reconsideration and after examination of legal implications it has been advised that with a view to ensure qualitative development of education it will be in public interest in the services of such teachers remain available to educational institutions for some time more, provided they are physically and mentally fit. This is the reason for the decision contained in paragraph 2 of the Government order. The decision serves public purpose. The public purpose is qualitative development of education. The decision does not serve the interest of an individual. It does not seek to give a second award to the award winner in the shape of extension in service by two years. 15. The above Division Bench thus clearly laid emphasis that the decision to extend the services of a teacher awarded with a National/State award is not to serve the interest of an individual, rather it is for the interest of the institution. Paragraph 2 of the Government order dated 17th June, 2008 by which extension has been granted to the appellant for two years also specifically provided so in following words ^^mDr dehZ lsok foLrkj dh vof/k esa 'kSf{kd in ij rSukr jgsxs A** 16. The submission, which has been much pressed by Dr. H.N. Tripathi, is that even if extension of services of the appellant is on the post of Lecturer, he by virtue of being senior most lecturer is entitled to function as ad-hoc Principal and his right to continue as ad-hoc Principal cannot be taken away nor extension can effect the seniority of the appellant. The appellant has emphasised that after extension the appellant shall continue as senior most Lecturer and thus is entitled to function as officiating Principal. 17. Against the Division Bench judgment in Dr. The appellant has emphasised that after extension the appellant shall continue as senior most Lecturer and thus is entitled to function as officiating Principal. 17. Against the Division Bench judgment in Dr. Prem Dutt Chamoli's case (supra), a special leave petition was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court being S.L.P. (C) No. 16808 of 1998 (Prem Dutt Chamoli v. State of U.P. and Ors.) decided on 24.1.1994 and the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the nature of extension on the basis of National/State award. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Dutt Chamoli's case (supra) are to the following effect: All that is necessary to make clear in these petitions is that since the petitioners have won National Award or State Award as teachers as the case may be they may be given two years extension in service as teachers according to the decision of the State Government itself. It is in the interest both of the institution and the public that their services as teachers should be utilised for such further period. However, it is made clear that these two years shall not be counted for seniority for getting either Principalship or any other higher post If the Commission or the Committee (in the case of the minority institution), however, wants to appoint or continue such teachers as Principal otherwise than on the ground that they are senior because of the extension which is granted as per this order they are at liberty to do so. The Committee appointed by the State Government, however, is at liberty not to grant extension in service to the teachers concerned, if they are of the opinion that the teachers have deteriorated in their performance as teachers after obtaining the National Award or if there was or is any complaint against them involving moral turpitude. The interim orders, if any, passed earlier in these matters shall stand vacated in view of the above order. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. 18. The observation of the Apex Court, which is quoted above, clearly indicates that after attaining the age of superannuation a teacher cannot claim any right on the basis of his seniority.” 15. Another Division Bench of this Court in Bhajan Lal Diwakar Vs. Bani Singh Thakurela and 4 others, 2015 (6) ADJ 579 , has also taken similar view. 18. The observation of the Apex Court, which is quoted above, clearly indicates that after attaining the age of superannuation a teacher cannot claim any right on the basis of his seniority.” 15. Another Division Bench of this Court in Bhajan Lal Diwakar Vs. Bani Singh Thakurela and 4 others, 2015 (6) ADJ 579 , has also taken similar view. The observations of the Court in paragraphs 6 & 7 are also reproduced hereinafter:- “6. In the present case, the first respondent attained the age of sixty two years in the month of July 2014. Under the unamended Regulation 21, since the date of retirement of the first respondent fell within the midst of the academic session, he was allowed to continue as a Lecturer until 30 June 2015. The first respondent continued on that basis until 30 June 2015. What the first respondent seeks, essentially is a further extension in service until 31 March 2016 which, in our opinion, would be impermissible. The benefit of such an extension under the amended regulation would clearly not be available to a teacher in the position of the first respondent who had already attained the age of superannuation prior to 1 April 2015. The first respondent had already availed of the continuance in service until the end of the academic session, which according to the unamended regulation, was to come to an end on 30 June 2015. The State Government by a Government Order dated 25 May 2015, clarified that such an employee would continue until 30 June 2015. In other words, the first respondent would not be entitled to a further extension in service until 31 March 2016. 7. The learned Single Judge has, in our opinion, erred in coming to the conclusion that the first respondent was entitled to an extension in service beyond 30 June 2015. Though in holding this, the learned Single Judge has relied on an earlier interim order, once the first respondent had duly availed of the extension till the date of effective retirement, which was to take place on 30 June 2015, there was no warrant for the grant of any further benefit to him. Amended Regulation 21, it must be noted, speaks of the date of retirement. In the case of the first respondent, the date of retirement would have been in July 2014. Amended Regulation 21, it must be noted, speaks of the date of retirement. In the case of the first respondent, the date of retirement would have been in July 2014. The date of retirement is not postponed to 30 June 2015 and all that happened as a result of the operation of the regulation is a continuance in service being granted beyond the age of retirement, so as to ensure that the academic interests of the students are not disrupted. That does not have any effect of postponing the original date of retirement of the first respondent, which was in July 2014.” 16. A full bench of this Court in Shashi Prabha Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & 2 others reported in 2016 (11) ADJ 425 , while declining to answer the questions referred to it on the ground that they do not arise for determination in the facts of the case also endorsed the view that continuance on a post, on the basis of an order of extension would not have the effect of either extending or postponing the date of superannuation itself. Para 7 of the full bench judgment in Shashi Prabha Dwivedi (supra) is extracted hereinafter:- “7. Having considered the background facts against which the Division Bench in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari took the view and considering the facts of the present case, we do find ourselves in agreement with Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General, that the questions referred by the Division Bench for our consideration, strictly speaking, do not arise in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Before the appellant could be said to be entitled to the benefit of proviso to Rule 29 and be held entitled to the benefits flowing from the principles laid down in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, the primary issue which would be liable to be considered, would be as to whether the appellant was, in fact, retiring during the academic session on attaining the age of 62 years. Admittedly, the appellant had attained the age of superannuation (62 years) prior to 1 July 2013 and was continuing in service till 30 June 2015 only on the strength of being a Presidential Awardee. Rule 29 provides the age of 62 years as the age of superannuation. It is not possible to read the age of 62 years in Rule 29 as 64 years. Rule 29 provides the age of 62 years as the age of superannuation. It is not possible to read the age of 62 years in Rule 29 as 64 years. The appellant attained the age of 64 years in the midst of the academic session 2015-2016. In other words, this was not a case where the appellant attained the age of superannuation, that is 62 years, post-1 April 2015. Continuance on a post on the basis of an order of extension would not have the effect of either extending or postponing the date of superannuation. The date of superannuation remains intact and unchanged, irrespective of the amendment to the academic session. Since the appellant was continuing in service only on the basis of an extension, the learned Single Judge was, in our opinion, correct in holding that she would not be entitled to the benefit under Rule 29 of the Rules.” 17. It has otherwise been the consistent view of this Court that once sessions benefit has been granted to the retired teacher by virtue of regulation 21, the teacher thereafter will not be entitled to sessions benefit, all over again, after the extended service comes to an end upon attaining the age of 65 years. See: Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017(1) ALJ 464, wherein following observations are made in paragraphs 16 & 17:- “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 hereinabove 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. As stated hereinabove 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 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 hereinbelow:- ^^mRiq:d fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&1775@15&¼14½&30¼37½@67@71 fnukad 06 ebZ] 1982 ,oa 'kklukns'k la[;k&3280@15&8&2002&2006¼20½@2002 VhŒlhŒ 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"Vªh;@jkT; v/;kid iqjLdkj izkIr f'k{kdksa dks nks o"kZ 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 gks rFkk 'kklukns'k fnukad 24-01-2003 ;g O;oLFkk gS fd lEcaf/kr f'k{kdksa dk LokLFk; izek.k i= la=kr ykHk lfgr mudh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ gksuh dh frfFk ls 6 ekg ls vf/kd iqjkus ugha gksus pkfg, mDr ls Li"V gS fd jk”Vªh;@jkT; v/;kid iqjLdkj izkIRk f'k{kdksa dks l=kr ykHk ds i'pkr nks o"kZ dk lsok foLrkj nsus ds fy, f'k{kd dk LokLF; cgqr gh egUoiw.kZ gS f'k{kd dk 'kkfjfjd ,oa ekufld LokLF; ,slk gksuk pkfg, fd og iw.kZ {kerk ls nks o"kksZ rd f'k{k.k dk;Z dj lds] fdUrq lsokfoLrkj izLrko ds lkFk miyC/k djk, tkus okys LokLFk; izek.k&i=ks ls ;g Li"V ugh gksrk gS fd f'k{kdksa dh dkSu&dkSu lh tkWp djkbZ tkrh gS ftlds vk/kkj ij mUgsa iw.kZ LOkLFk gksus dk izek.k&i= fn;k tkrk gS^^ 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 hereinabove, 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 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 upto 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 upto 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 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 hereinabove. 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 hereinabove. 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: ^^mDrdehZ lsok foLrkj dh vof/k esa f'k{kd in ij rSukr jgsaxs^^ 18. In the facts of the present case also the writ petitioner was granted sessions benefit when he attained the age of superannuation specified in Regulation 21, inasmuch as, he would have retired on 1.4.2015 itself. His continuation beyond 1.4.2015 was on account of sessions benefit which continued upto 24.6.2015. Extension in age upto 65 years was allowed only on 24.6.2015. A second sessions benefit would, therefore, otherwise not be available to him. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions this Court has no hesitation in holding that neither the Government Order dated 24.8.2017 suffers from any infirmity in law nor the petitioner has any right to continue till the end of academic session 2018-19, after he has been granted extension in service to continue upto the age of 65 years. 20. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.