Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 321 (ALL)

Suman Lata v. State Of U. P.

2021-02-26

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2021
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Prashant Mathur, Advocate and Shri Bharat K. Srivastava, Advocate, representing the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.7.2020 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Bareilly Cantt, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.E.O.') retiring the petitioner w.e.f. 31.7.2020 and for a consequential mandamus not to disturb her peaceful functioning as Headmistress till 31.3.2021, i.e., till the end of the present academic session. 3. The facts of the case are that R.A. Bazar, Primary School, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as, 'Institution') is managed by the Cantonment Board, Bareilly. It has been stated in the writ petition that the Institution was recognized w.e.f. July 1959 by order dated 24.8.1959 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.I.O.S.'), i.e., before the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1972') was enacted and continues to be recognized by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, i.e., the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board (hereinafter referred to as, 'Board') after the Act, 1972 came in operation. 4. The date of birth of the petitioner is 30.7.1958. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by order dated 18.6.1982 of the Cantonment Executive Officer, Bareilly Cantonment and joined as such on 26.7.1982. The confirmation of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher is not disputed by the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Headmistress of the Institution vide order dated 10.7.2014 passed by the C.E.O. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the Cantonment Board regarding the retirement age of the petitioner. The Cantonment Board, being of the view that the petitioner was to retire at the age of 60 years, intimated through notice dated 1.2.2018 her date of superannuation to be 31.7.2018, i.e., on the last date of the month in which she attained the age of 60 years. The Cantonment Board was of the view that the service conditions of the petitioner were governed by the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.F.S Rules') which prescribed the age of retirement to be sixty years. The Cantonment Board was of the view that the service conditions of the petitioner were governed by the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.F.S Rules') which prescribed the age of retirement to be sixty years. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid notice before this Court through Writ-A No. 9831 of 2018 on the ground that by virtue of Rule 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Service (12th Amendment) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1981') her age of retirement was 62 years. This Court vide its order dated 12.4.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 9831 of 2018 stayed the operation of the notice dated 1.2.2018. By virtue of the aforesaid interim order the petitioner continued in service, but vide impugned order dated 30.7.2020, the petitioner was retired w.e.f. 31.7.2020, i.e., on the last date of the month in which she attained the age of 62 years. As noted earlier, the order dated 30.7.2020 passed by the C.E.O., i.e., respondent No. 2 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 5. It has been stated in the writ petition that by virtue of the Proviso to Rule 29 of the Rules, 1981, the petitioner was entitled to session benefit, i.e., she could not be retired before the end of the academic session which starts from 1st of April and ends on 31st March in the next year. It was argued that in the circumstance, the petitioner was entitled to continue as Headmistress of the Institution till 31.3.2021 as her date of retirement falls in the mid of the academic session starting from 1.4.2020. The aforesaid ground raised in the writ petition has also been argued by the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the service conditions of the petitioner are not governed by the C.F.S. Rules but are governed by 1981 Rules and Rule 29 of the 1981 Rules prescribe the age of superannuation of the Teachers appointed in the Basic Schools recognized by the Board. It has been argued that under Rule 29 as amended in 2011, the age of retirement of teachers of Basic Schools is 62 years and the Proviso to Rule 29 provides for extension of service till the end of academic session if the concerned teacher retires in the mid of academic session. It has been argued that under Rule 29 as amended in 2011, the age of retirement of teachers of Basic Schools is 62 years and the Proviso to Rule 29 provides for extension of service till the end of academic session if the concerned teacher retires in the mid of academic session. Further, through Government Orders and notifications dated 15th October, 2014 and 9th December, 2014, the academic session which previously started from 1st April and ended on 30th June next has been changed and now the academic session in a Basic Schools starts from 1st April and ends on 31st March in the next year. It has been argued that in pursuance to the judgement of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Tiwari & Others, 2015 (8) ADJ 509 a Government Order dated 8th October, 2015 was issued which in effect provided that a teacher who retires during an academic session shall be entitled to extension of service till the end of the academic session, i.e., till 31st March. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the controversy regarding applicability of C.F.S. Rules on employees and teachers of Basic Schools recognized by the Board is no more res-integra and has already been resolved by this Court in Usha Bunkar Vs. General Officer, Commanding in Chief, Central Command & 2 Others Writ A No. 44835 of 2013 in which this Court vide its judgement and order dated 1.3.2017 held that C.F.S. Rules were not applicable on teachers of the Institutions recognized by the Board and the service conditions of the said teachers shall be governed by the Rules framed under the Act, 1972. The judgement and order dated 1.3.2017 passed in Usha Bunkar (Supra) was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 230 of 2017 vide its judgement and order dated 24.7.2018. It was also stated that the Special Leave Petition No. 22464 of 2018 (Cantonment Board, Kanpur & Another Vs. Usha Bunkar & Another) challenging the aforesaid two judgements of this Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its judgement and order dated 14.9.2018. The said judgements of this court and the order of the Supreme Court have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. Usha Bunkar & Another) challenging the aforesaid two judgements of this Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its judgement and order dated 14.9.2018. The said judgements of this court and the order of the Supreme Court have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. In support of his argument, the petitioner has also relied on the judgements referred by this Court in its judgement in Usha Bunkar (Supra). 6. It was argued that in view of the aforesaid, the order dated 30.7.2020 passed by the C.E.O. is contrary to law and liable to be quashed. 7. In their short counter affidavit, the respondents have stated and it has been argued by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was appointed under the C.F.S. Rules and under Rule 22 of the C.F.S. Rules, the age of retirement is 58 years and vide letter dated 4th June, 1998 issued by the Ministry of Defence the concerned officers have been permitted to grant extension in service up to the age of 60 years to all Cantonment Fund Servants who were due to retire on 31.5.1981 or thereafter. It was argued that the petitioner was liable to retire in 2018, but continued till 30.7.202 by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 9831 of 2018. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that there was no provision in the C.F.S. Rules to grant extension of service till the end of academic session if the teacher retires in the mid of academic session and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner to continue up to st March, 2021 even though she attained the age of 62 years on 30.7.2020 is not tenable. It has been argued that the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner under the C.F.S. Rules and her service conditions are not governed by the 1981 Rules but by the C.F.S. Rules and therefore there is no statutory provision entitling the petitioner to continue till the end of the academic session even though her date of retirement falls in the mid of academic session. It has been stated in the counter affidavit and it has also been argued by the counsel for the respondents that in any case by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the C.F.S. Rules override any Rule or Regulations framed by the Board under the Act, 1972 and also because the C.F.S. Rules being Special Rules framed under the Cantonment Act, 1924 override the General Rules framed by the Board under the Act, 1972 and thus the petitioner can not claim the benefit of the Proviso to Rule 29 of the Rules, 1981. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submission of the counsel for the parties. 9. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board was constituted by the State Government exercising its power under Section 3 of the Act, 1972. Under Section 19 of the Act, 1972, the State Government is empowered to make Rules, by notification, for carrying out the purposes of the Act and such Rules may provide for the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the post of teachers and other employees of basic schools recognized by the Board. Section 19 of the Act, 1972 is reproduced below :- “19. Power to make Rules. -[(1) The State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely - (a) the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the posts of officers, teachers and other employees under Section 6; (b) the tenure of service, remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of officers, teachers and other employees transferred to the Board under Section 9; (c) the recruitment, and the conditions of service of the persons appointed, to the posts of teachers and other employees of basic schools recognized by the Board; (d) any other matter for which insufficient provision exists in the Act and provision in the rules is considered by the State Government to be necessary; (e) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed.]” (Emphasis added) 10. A perusal of Section 19(2) of the Act, 1972 would show that the under the said provision, the State Government is empowered to make Rules prescribing the conditions of service of officers, teachers and its employees appointed under Section 6 of the Act, 1972, the conditions of service of teachers and other employees transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act, 1972 and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the post of teachers and others employees of basic schools recognized by the Board. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is an officer or employee of the Board appointed under Section 6 of the Act, 1972. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he is an officer, teacher or an employee transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act, 1972. 11. In exercise of its power under Section 19(2)(c) of the Act, 1972, the State Government framed Rules, 1981. Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules, 1981 defines the “Appointing Authority” to mean the District Basic Education Officer for teachers referred in Rule 3. Rule 2(1)(c) of the Rules, 1981 defines the “Basic School” as a school where instructions are imparted from classes I to VIII and Rule 2(1)(h) defines “Junior Basic School” as a Basic School where instructions from classes I to V are imparted. Rule 2(1)(n) defines “Service” to mean the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers' Service and Rule 2(1)(o) defines “Teacher” as a person employed for imparting instructions in Nursery Schools, Basic Schools, Junior Basic Schools, or Senior Basic Schools. 12. Rule 29 of the 1981 Rules prescribes the age of superannuation of teachers and is reproduced below : 29. Age of superannuation.-Every teacher shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years: Provided that a teacher who retires during an academic session (July 1 to June 30) shall continue to work till the end of the academic session, that is, June 30 and such period of service will be deemed as extended period of employment. 13. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1981 states that the Rules shall apply to all teachers of local bodies transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act, 1972 and also to all teachers employed in the Basic and Nursery Schools established by the Board. 14. 13. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1981 states that the Rules shall apply to all teachers of local bodies transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act, 1972 and also to all teachers employed in the Basic and Nursery Schools established by the Board. 14. Rule 3 of the Rules 1981 are reproduced below :- “3. Extent of application. - These rules shall apply to : (i) All teachers of local bodies transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act; and (ii) all teachers employed for the Basic and Nursery Schools established by the Board.” (Emphasis added) 15. It is pertinent to note that the Rules, 1981 do not define the term local body, but in accordance with Rule 2(2) of the Rules, 1981 the expression local body used in Rules 1981 shall have the same meaning as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1972. Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1972 defines “local body” to mean Zila Panchayat or Municipality as the case may be. Thus, Rules, 1981 govern the services conditions only of a teacher, who is either a teacher of a Zila Panchayat or Municipality transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act, 1972 or is a teacher in a Basic School established by the Board. The Cantonment Board is not a local body as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1972 and, the petitioner is not a teacher of a local body transferred to the Board under Section 9 of the Act, 1972, therefore, the petitioner is not covered by Rule 3(i) of the Rules, 1981. The Institution of the petitioner is not established by the Board. The Institution of the petitioner has been established and is being managed by the Cantonment Board. It is evident that the Institution is not covered by Rule 3(ii) of the Rules, 1981 also and thus the service conditions of the petitioner are not governed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. Consequently, Rule 29 of the Rules, 1981 is not applicable on the petitioner and the petitioner can not seek benefit of the Proviso of the said Rule which provides for extension of service of a teacher in case his age of superannuation falls in the mid of academic session, i.e., between 1st April and 31st March of the next year. 16. 16. The State Government in exercise of its power under Section 19 of the Act, 1972 has also framed The Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1975'). Rule 3 of the Rules, 1975 states that every recognized school shall be bound by the conditions and restrictions specified in the said Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1975 is reproduced below :- “3. Applicability. -Every recognised school shall be bound by the conditions and restrictions hereinafter specified.” Rule 2(b) of the Rules, 1975 defines Junior Basic School to mean an Institution other than High Schools or Intermediate Colleges imparting Education upon Vth Class. 17. Rule 2(e) of the Rules, 1975 defines recognized schools as follows :- “2(e). "Recognised School" means any Junior Basic School, not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the board or any local body, recognised by the Board before the commencement of these rules for imparting education from Class I to V.” (Emphasis added) 18. Local body has not been defined in the Rules, 1975 also but as the Rules, 1975 are delegated legislation framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 19(2)(c) of the Act, 1972, therefore, words or phrases used in the Rules but not defined would have the same meaning as defined in the Act, 1972. In view of the aforesaid, local body in Rule 2(e) of the Rules, 1975 would have the same meaning as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1972, i.e., Zila Panchayat or Municipality, as the case may be. The Institution neither belongs to nor is wholly maintained by the Board or any local body. However, it has been stated by the petitioner that the Institution was recognized before commencement of the Rules for imparting education from class I to V. In view of the aforesaid, on the averment of the petitioner, the 1975 Rules govern the service conditions of the petitioner. 19. However, it has been stated by the petitioner that the Institution was recognized before commencement of the Rules for imparting education from class I to V. In view of the aforesaid, on the averment of the petitioner, the 1975 Rules govern the service conditions of the petitioner. 19. A perusal of Rules, 1975 indicates that though Rule 10 of the Rules, 1975 ensures that even recognized schools shall undertake to pay to every teacher and employee the same scale of pay, dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance as are paid to the teachers and employees of the Board possessing similar qualifications and Rule 11 of the said Rules provide that no order dismissing, removing or terminating the services of a teacher or other employee of a recognized school shall be passed without prior approval in writing of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, but there is no provision in the Rules, 1975 regarding superannuation of the teachers and the employees of recognized basic schools, i.e., Basic Schools which are not established and wholly maintained by the Board or local body as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1972. Rule, 13 of the Rules, 1975 merely provides that it would be the duty of the managing body to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, 1975 and other lawful directions as may from time to time be issued from a person authorized by the Board. The petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that any directions were issued by the Board to the Management of the Institution asking it to modify the service conditions of its employees to confirm with Rule 29 of the Rules, 1981. At this stage, it is clarified that the Court is not expressing any opinion on the validity of such direction, if any, issued by the Board as the same is not in issue before this Court. 20. The outcome of the above discussion is that the benefit of the Proviso of Rule 29 of Rules, 1981 is available only to teachers specified in Rule 3 of Rules, 1981 and the service conditions of teachers of Junior Basic Schools recognized by the board but not wholly maintained by the Board or any local body, i.e., a Zila Panchayat or a Municipality, shall be governed by the Rules, 1975. The Rules, 1975 do not prescribe the age of superannuation of such teachers, i.e., teachers whose service conditions are governed by Rules, 1975. The age of superannuation of such teachers and claim for extension of service beyond the age of superannuation would depend on the provision in the rules prescribed by the managing body of the school. In the present case it is the C.F.S. Rules which, admittedly, do not provide for extension of service beyond the age of superannuation. 21. Before dealing with the different cases referred by the counsel for the petitioner wherein orders have been passed granting session benefit to the teachers, it would be appropriate to refer to the Service Rules applicable in the said cases. 22. The service conditions of the teachers of recognized Junior High Schools are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools)(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers), Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1978'). The said Rules have been made by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 19(2) of the Act, 1972. Rule 2(h) of the Rules, 1978 defines “Recognized Schools” to mean any Junior High School, not being an institution belonging to or wholly maintained by the Board or any local body, recognized by the Board as such. Local body has not been defined in the Rules, 1978, and therefore, the term would have the same meaning as given in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1972. A Junior High School recognized by the Board but not maintained by the Board or any local body would be a recognized school under Rule 2(h) of the Rules, 1978. Thus, a Junior High School managed and maintained by the Cantonment Board, but recognized by the Board, i.e., the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education shall be a recognized school under the Rules, 1978 and the Rules, 1978 shall govern the service conditions of teachers of a Junior High School managed and maintained by the Cantonment Board. 23. Rule 14 of the Rules provide as follows :- “14. Superannuation. 23. Rule 14 of the Rules provide as follows :- “14. Superannuation. -Every Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognised school shall retire in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty two years, provided that a Headmaster or Assistant Teacher who retires during an academic session, not being Headmaster and Assistant Teacher retiring on June 30, shall continue to work till June 30, following next after the date of retirement and such period of service shall be deemed as extended period of employment.” (Emphasis added) 24. A reading of the Rule 14 of the Rules, 1978 shows that it is applicable on recognized school and the benefit of the said Rule is available to every Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognized school. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1978 grant session benefit to a teacher of a recognized school who retires in the mid of the academic session. 25. Similarly, The Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1921'), defines “Institution” in Section 2(b) to mean a recognised Intermediate College, Higher Secondary School or High School, and includes, where the context so requires, a part of an institution. Section 2(d) of the Act, 1921 defines "Recognition" to mean recognition for the purpose of preparing candidates for admission to the Board's examinations. “Board” in Section 2(a) of the Act, 1921 is defined to mean Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Section 2(e) of the Act, 1921 defines Regulations as 'Regulations made by the Board under the Act.' Section 15 empowers the Board to make Regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act and Section 15(2) (k) empowers the Board to make Regulations on all matters which by the Act are to be or may be provided for by the Regulations. It is relevant to note that 'local body' has not been defined in the Act, 1921. Section 16G of the Act, 1921 provides that every person, which includes teachers and Head of the Institution, employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulations and any agreement between the management and such employee insofar as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 1921 or the Regulations framed thereunder shall be void. Section 16G(1) of the Act, 1921 is reproduced below :- “16G.[Conditions of service of Head of Institutions, teachers and other employees]. -(1) Every person employed in a recognised institution shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be prescribed by Regulations and any agreement between the management and such employee insofar as it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or with the Regulations shall be void.” (Emphasis added) 26. Section 16H of the Act, 1921 exempts from the operation of Section 16G of the Act, 1921 recognized institutions maintained by the State Government or the Central Government as well as recognized institutions maintained by a local body who have been declared to be so exempted by the State Government. 27. A joint reading of the different sub-clauses of Section 2 with Sections 16G and 16H of the Act, 1921 shows that the service conditions of teachers and the Head of a Intermediate College, Higher Secondary School or High School recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education shall be such as may be prescribed by the Regulations except where the Institution is maintained by the Central or State Government or is maintained by a local body and the State Government exempts the Institution from operation of Section 16G of the Act, 1921. Apparently the Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder shall apply on the recognized Intermediate Colleges and High Schools managed and maintained by a Cantonment Board or any other local body till the State Government exempts the said schools as stipulated in Section 16H. 28. Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 prescribes the conditions of service of the employees of the Institution governed by Act, 1921. Regulation 21 of the said Chapter III prescribes the age of retirement of the Principal, Headmaster and Teachers of such Institutions and also provides for extension of service till the end of academic session in case the age of retirement of any such employee falls in the mid of academic session. Regulation 21 of the said Chapter III prescribes the age of retirement of the Principal, Headmaster and Teachers of such Institutions and also provides for extension of service till the end of academic session in case the age of retirement of any such employee falls in the mid of academic session. Regulation 21 is reproduced below :- hindi pending “21-vkpk;Z iz/kkuk/;kid] v/;kidksa dk vf/ko"kZ o; 62 o"kZ gks xh QyLo:i 58 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus ok uSo`fRrd ykHk vc 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZ okys lsrk vk;q ij rFkk 60 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij feyus okys ls ok uSo`fRrd ykHk 62 o"kZ dh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q ij vuqeU; gksa xsA ;fn fdlh vkpk;Z] iz/kkuk/;kid vFkok v/;kid dk mi;qZDr vf/ko"kZ o; 2 tqykbZ vkSj 30 twu ds e?; esa fdlh frfFk dks iM+rk gS rks mls ml n'kk dks NksM+dj tcfd og Loa; lsok foLrj.k u ysus gsrq fyf[kr lwpuk vius vf/ko"kZ o; dh frfFk ls 2 ekg iwoZ ns nsa] 30 twu rd lsok foLrj.k Lo;eso iznku fd;k x;k le>k tk;sxk] rkfd xzh"ekodk'k ds mijkUr tqykbZ esa izfrLFkkuh dh O;oLFkk gks lds A blds ok foLrkj.k ds vfrfjDr lsoy mUgha fof'k"V n'kkvksa esa iznku fd;k tk lds xk tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;A” (Emphasis added) 29. Regulation 21 was subsequently amended through notifications dated 12th June, 2014 and 15th October, 2014 providing that the academic session shall begin from 1st April and end on 31st March next year and consequently the extension of service shall be granted to the teachers whose retirement age falls between 2nd April and 31st March next. 30. The above discussion shows that age of superannuation and session benefit is prescribed in the Rules governing the service conditions of teachers of recognized Junior High Schools as well as recognized Intermediate Colleges, Higher Secondary Schools and High Schools, which includes such schools managed by the Cantonment Board. Similarly, age of superannuation and provision of extension of service is also provided in Rule 29 of Rules, 1981 which govern the service conditions of teachers of basic schools of Zila Panchayat and Municipality transferred to the Board and also of teachers employed for Basic Schools established by the Board. The Rules, 1981 do not govern the service conditions of Basic Schools managed and maintained by the Cantonment Board. The Rules, 1981 do not govern the service conditions of Basic Schools managed and maintained by the Cantonment Board. However, Rules, 1975 which govern the service conditions of teachers of recognized Junior Basic Schools, which includes such schools managed by the Cantonment Board, does not prescribe the age of superannuation of teachers of Junior Basic Schools and also does not provide for extension of service in case the teacher retires in the mid of academic session. It is this oddity in Rules, 1975, i.e., the omission to prescribe the age of superannuation and for extension of service till the end of academic session, which distinguishes it from Rules, 1981, Rules 1978 and the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921 and has to be kept in mind while considering the different judgements referred by the counsel for the petitioner. 31. In Writ-A No. 44835 of 2013, i.e., the Usha Bunkar (Supra) case, the issue related to extension of service till the end of academic session to an Assistant Teacher of a Junior High School. A Junior High School managed or maintained by a Cantonment Board would be governed by the Rules, 1978 and therefore the benefit of Rule 14 would be available to the teachers of such an Institution. Similarly, the judgements of this Court in Triloki Nath Saxena Vs. Rookee's High School, Bareilly & Others 1997 AWC (Supp.) 422, Brahma Dayal Mehta Vs. Senior Personnel Executive, Indian Drugs, 1990 (2) AWC 1121 , Shailendra Kumar Srivastava & Another Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli & Others, 2013 (2) ESC 1016 and Shyam Lal and Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2011 (3) ADJ 640 , relate to applicability of Section 16G of the Act, 1921 and benefit of Regulations 21 to the teachers employed in recognized Institutions as defined in the Act, 1921. In Ramesh Chandra Tiwari (Supra) the issue was regarding the benefit of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1981. It is apparent from paragraph 1 of the reports that the case related to Head Master of Schools conducted and managed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board and it was not disputed that the teachers in the Institutions in question were governed by Rules, 1981 and, therefore, the benefit of Rule 29 was available to the said teachers. It is apparent from paragraph 1 of the reports that the case related to Head Master of Schools conducted and managed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board and it was not disputed that the teachers in the Institutions in question were governed by Rules, 1981 and, therefore, the benefit of Rule 29 was available to the said teachers. The judgement does not consider the case of teachers of Basic Schools, whose service conditions are not governed by Rules, 1981 and is, thus not a precedent for the present case. Thus, the judgements referred above do not help the case of the petitioner and are not applicable in the present case. 32. It is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe the service conditions of its employees. The said prerogative can be superseded by statutory rules which may prescribe the service conditions of the employees. There are no statutory Rules prescribing the retirement age or granting session benefit to a teacher of a Primary School which does not belong to or is not maintained by the Board or a local body as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act, 1972. In view of the aforesaid, the retirement age of the petitioner as well as her claim for session benefit can be decided only in terms of the C.F.S. Rules. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the C.F.S. Rules do not grant session benefit to a teacher who retires in the mid of the academic session. 33. It is clarified that I have not expressed any opinion on the argument of the counsel for the respondents regarding Article 254 and the power of the Board or the State Government to enact rules governing the service conditions of the teachers of Schools managed by the Cantonment Boards but recognized by the respective Education Boards as they were not necessary to decide the present case. 34. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by her. 35. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.