Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1228 (ALL)

Guru Charan v. State of U. P.

2022-08-04

MANISH MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Ram Krishna Patel, Mr. Adarsh Singh, Mr. Om Prakash Chaube, Mr. Gorakh Yadav, Mr. Kamal Kumar Kesherwani, Mr. Chandra Sekhar Pandey, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Manoj Yadav, learned counsels appearing for petitioner and Mr. J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf respondent-State. 2. The question of law required to be adjudicated upon in this bunch of petitions is as follows : (a) Whether option pertaining to grant of death-cum-retirement gratuity explicitly given or deemed to have given in terms of statutory rule by a member of teaching staff of Intermediate College can be revised without amendment in statutory rules only on the basis of subsequent Government Orders ? (b) Whether such revision of option can be exercised at the instance of family members of such a teacher consequent upon his demise having failed to exercise such an option during his life time ? 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondents have taken a plea of some of the petition's not being maintainable in terms of Chapter 22, Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules since earlier also the same petitioners had filed petitions. However it is not disputed that the earlier petitions had not challenged the orders rejecting claims of petitioner, which are under challenge in the present petitions. As such, the subsequent rejection of claims of petitioners clearly constitutes a fresh cause of action due to which in the considered opinion of this Court, the same would not be barred under Chapter 22 Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. The petitions are therefore held maintainable. 4. The predecessors-in-interest of petitioners were teachers serving in Government Aided Private Educational Institutions. There was disparity in service conditions of the teachers serving in Government run institutions and those serving in Government aided private educational institutions. Government of India appointed Secondary Education Service Commission, which made certain recommendations for removing disparity. On basis of these recommendations. State of Uttar Pradesh initially introduced a scheme known as "Triple Benefit Scheme' and framed Rules known as 'Uttar Pradesh Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance, Pension Rules, 1964' which came in effect from 1st October, 1964. Government of India appointed Secondary Education Service Commission, which made certain recommendations for removing disparity. On basis of these recommendations. State of Uttar Pradesh initially introduced a scheme known as "Triple Benefit Scheme' and framed Rules known as 'Uttar Pradesh Aided Educational Institutions Employees Contributory Provident Fund, Insurance, Pension Rules, 1964' which came in effect from 1st October, 1964. In pursuance of the aforesaid Rules, Government Order dated 17-12-1965 was issued for implementing the Scheme under which the benefits of (i) contributory provident fund, (ii) special life Insurance, and (iii) pension including the family pension were to be given to all the teachers serving in the State aided primary schools, Junior High Schools, Higher Secondary Schools, Degree Colleges, Training Colleges etc. However, the pensionery benefits under the above Triple Benefits Scheme were still not at par with pensionery benefits admissible to teachers serving in Government institutions. To remove this disparity and in order to provide the same pensionery benefits to the teachers of Government Aided Private Institutions which were admissible to Government teachers, State of Uttar Pradesh issued Government Order dated 31st March, 1978. However, as the age of superannuation in case of teachers serving in Government colleges was 58 years, the teachers serving in Government Aided Private Institutions were asked to opt for the age of superannuation at 58 years for getting the pensionery benefits at par with the teachers serving in Government Colleges. Government Order inviting such option was issued on 10-8-1978. Under this Government Order if teacher opted to retire at the age of 58 years, he was to get death-cum-retirement gratuity along with other pensionery benefits. 5. Additionally, the 'Rules of U.P. School and College Teachers' Gratuity Fund' were framed and came into effect from 01.04.1964 which postulated grant of gratuity to teachers of Aided Educational Institution. They were to apply to all members of the teaching staff of State Aided Educational Institutions managed either by local body or private management which were recognized and aided by the State Education Department pertaining to primary school, junior high school, higher secondary school and degree college. Paragraph 5 of the said Rules provided gratuity and methods of its calculation in view of services rendered provided the teacher at the time of his death in service had put in not less than three years continuous service. Paragraph 5 of the said Rules provided gratuity and methods of its calculation in view of services rendered provided the teacher at the time of his death in service had put in not less than three years continuous service. There was no option required to be given by a teacher for inclusion in the aforesaid scheme which became automatically applicable upon all such teachers indicated herein-above. 6. Since the pensionary benefits of teachers serving in State Aided Non-Government Educational Institution run by private management were not at par with their counter parts in Government Colleges, the State Government-considered the demand agitated by such teachers and issued a Government Order dated 31.03.1978 which provided that permanent whole time teachers in State Aided Secondary Educational Institutions run by the private management and local bodies retiring on or after 01.03.1977 would be entitled to get pension calculated at the same time and in the same manner as admissible to their counter parts employed in the Government Colleges in the equal rank and grade. 7. This benefit was, however, extended subject to the conditions, inter alia, that benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity of family pension to dependents of a teacher after his death available to teachers in Government Colleges would not be available and the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme in relation to such teachers would be supplanted by General Provident Fund Scheme with effect from 01.03.1977. The Triple Benefit and Contributory Provident Fund Schemes were deemed to be amended accordingly in respect of such teachers. 8. The teachers serving in State Aided Secondary Educational Institutions controlled by Private Managements, however, continued to agitate for more pensionary benefits and in consideration of their demand, the State Government issued another Government Order dated 10.08.1978, thereby extending the benefit of death-cum-retirement Gratuity to teachers of State Aided Non-Government Secondary Institutions on their opting for retirement at the age of 58 years and also subject to the fulfilment of other conditions stipulated therein. It may be usefully observed that benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity was available to the teachers in Government colleges and it was by means of the said Government Order that the said benefit was extended for the first time to the teachers in the State Aided Non-Government Educational Institutions. 9. It may be usefully observed that benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity was available to the teachers in Government colleges and it was by means of the said Government Order that the said benefit was extended for the first time to the teachers in the State Aided Non-Government Educational Institutions. 9. In order to avail of the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity, a teacher in State Aided Non-Government Educational Institution was required to give his option for retirement at the age of 58 years which, it may be stated, is the prescribed age for the retirement of teachers in Government Colleges as against 60 years which is the prescribed age of superannuation for teachers in State Aided Non-Government Secondary Institutions. 10. According to the Government Order dated 10.08.1978, teachers willing to opt for gratuity, were required to give their options in a prescribed proforma, in accordance with a Niyamawali which was required to be prepared by the Director of Education and publicized with the approval of the State Government as would be evident from paragraph 4 of the Government Order. 11. The Niyamawali known as ^^jkT; lgk;rk izkIr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds v/;kidksa dh e`R;q rFkk lsokfo`frd vkuqrksf"kd dh fu;ekoyh** was prepared by the Director of Education, as comprehended by Paragraph 4 of the Government Order dated 10.08.1978, was published/issued/notified vide Government Order dated 29.08.1981. 12. The Rules of 1981 however provided that option for inclusion in the rules would be required to be made by existing teachers in service within a period of six months from the date of notification of the Rules and subsequent appointees were required to give their option within a period of two years from entering into service. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981 issued on 29.08.1981 specifically provided that a teacher in service was required to give an option of continuing in service either up-till the age of 58 years or extended service upto 60 years. The benefit of the Gratuity Scheme was available only to those teachers who gave an option to superannuate at the age of 58 years. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981 also provided that option once given would be deemed to be final in nature. 13. The benefit of the Gratuity Scheme was available only to those teachers who gave an option to superannuate at the age of 58 years. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981 also provided that option once given would be deemed to be final in nature. 13. Subsequent to the aforesaid Rules of 1981, the Government issued order dated 06.07.1982 indicating that the time limit of six months provided earlier for giving option to existing teachers was inadequate and therefore a further time limit up-till 31.12.1982 was provided for giving of option. Thereafter, Government issued another order dated 06.10.1990 in terms of the earlier Government Orders dated 31.03.1978, 28.07.1978 and 03.11.1978. It was indicated in the Government Order that since inadvertently various teachers were deprived of being included in the Gratuity Scheme since they were unable to give their option within the prescribed time limit, government after consideration extended the time limit for giving such option to a further 90 days from the date of issuance of the Government Order. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Government Order provided that in case of teachers who failed to give their option, it would be deemed that they had opted to superannuate at the age of 58 years and therefore would be covered by the Gratuity Scheme automatically. Paragraph 3 of the Government Order also provided that the option would be available also for those teachers who had already given their options so that maximum teachers would come within purview of beneficial scheme. 14. Subsequent to the said Government Order, another Government Order dated 04.11.1991 was issued, again with regard to providing options for inclusion under the Gratuity Scheme. This Government Order provided amendment of the earlier Government Order dated 06.10.1990 again extending the time limit for giving of option. The order also indicated similar provision of option being provided by the teachers for superannuation either at the age of 58 years or 60 years. Subsequent to the said order, another Government Order dated 18.11.1991 was issued finding that despite issuance of various Government Orders on the subject, many teachers had not been able to exercise their options and therefore another opportunity was provided for providing of such options. 15. Subsequent to the said order, another Government Order dated 18.11.1991 was issued finding that despite issuance of various Government Orders on the subject, many teachers had not been able to exercise their options and therefore another opportunity was provided for providing of such options. 15. Considering the Government Orders dated 06.10.1990 and 04.11.1991 a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Kamla Sharma Versus Deputy Director of Education and another, Special Appeal No.482 of 1993 held that options exercised by teachers already could be changed in terms of the aforesaid Government Orders. However another Division Bench in the case of Prakash Chand Sharma versus Deputy Direction of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly and another passed in Special No.2891 of 1995 took a contrary view in the matter while distinguishing the earlier Division Bench on facts. However, the aforesaid contradictory judgments were thereafter referred for adjudication before the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Prabha Kakkar Versus Joint Director of Education, Kanpur and others 2000 (2) UPLBEC 1378 (Allahabad). The questions framed before the Full Bench were whether in terms of the scheme provided in the Government Orders, acceptance of option exercised by teacher and its communication was necessary to make it final and irrevocable. The questions framed are as follows:- 1. Whether in the Scheme provided in the Government Orders dated 10.8.1978. 6.10.1990 and 4.11.1991 and the Rules of 1981 acceptance of the option exercised by the teacher and its communication was necessary to make it final and irrevocable? 2. Whether the option exercised by teacher became final and irrevocable after it was counter signed by the District Inspector of Schools? 3. Whether by efflux of long time the option exercised by teacher in pursuance of the Government Orders could be legally deemed to have been accepted and it could not be changed or revoked? 16. The Full Bench after considering aspects of the case, recorded its conclusion that the act of acceptance of option by the Deputy Director of Education and its communication to the employee was necessary in order to make it final before which option given by teachers could be withdrawn. 16. The Full Bench after considering aspects of the case, recorded its conclusion that the act of acceptance of option by the Deputy Director of Education and its communication to the employee was necessary in order to make it final before which option given by teachers could be withdrawn. The Full Bench also held that options once exercised by a teacher could be deemed to have been accepted but in view of subsequent Government Order dated 17.02.1999, teachers of Government Aided Private Higher Secondary Schools could change their option within a year before retirement. However since questions 1 and 2 had already been answered, the aforesaid question was not specifically answered since it was not necessary to decide. 17. The Full Bench noticed the Government Order issued subsequently on 17.02.1999 in which it was again stated by the Government that a number of teachers in recognized and government aided colleges have not been able to give their options and were therefore deprived of benefit of the Gratuity Scheme. It was therefore decided by the Government that such teachers could change their options already given, up-till 1st of July one year prior to date of superannuation. The said proposition was reiterated in the Government Order dated 17.11.1999 wherein facility to change their option already given earlier was also indicated. 18. Consequent thereupon, the Government Order dated 04.02.2004 was issued again pertaining to issue of option to be made by such teachers in view of the fact that Regulation 21 of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 stood amended with the age of superannuation of a teacher now being 60 years instead of 58 years. 19. Mr. Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in all the petitions in the present bunch, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who were earlier working as teachers in State Aided Private Institution had passed away prior to exercise of their facility of change in option. It is submitted that the Government Orders indicated herein-above and particularly the Government Order dated 17.02.1999 have been issued in terms of paragraph 20 of the Rules of 1981 which grant power upon the Government to issue necessary orders to remove any difficulty or confusion in the grant of benefits of gratuity to such teacher. It is submitted that the Government Orders indicated herein-above and particularly the Government Order dated 17.02.1999 have been issued in terms of paragraph 20 of the Rules of 1981 which grant power upon the Government to issue necessary orders to remove any difficulty or confusion in the grant of benefits of gratuity to such teacher. As such, it is submitted that once power to remove difficulties has already been conferred upon the State Government by statutory rule itself, there was no occasion for the State Government to have first amended the rule and in such cases, the issuance of various Government Orders in terms of paragraph 20 of the Rule of 1981 would suffice. It is thus submitted that there is no occasion to hold that statutory provision by subordinate legislation has been overridden by administrative order. 20. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that various government orders and wordings used therein clearly indicate that the Government had at all time wished a beneficial provision upon the teachers and required as many as possible to be covered by the aforesaid Gratuity Scheme. 21. It has also been contended that although the Rules of 1981 stipulate that option once given could not be changed thereafter but the government order issued on the subject clearly indicate that difficulties were being caused due to such a strict stipulation having been inserted in the Rules of 1981 and due to such difficulties having been caused, were sought to be removed by the government itself by issuance of the Government Orders which were clearly in terms of paragraph 20 of Rules of 1981. As such it is submitted that the government was fully empowered to bring about the change pertaining to options being given by teachers. 22. With regard to the second question, it has been submitted that since the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners have passed away prior to exercise of change in option as stipulated in the Government Order, and the scheme being beneficial in nature,the family members of such deceased teacher would be entitled to exercise a change in option particularly in view of the stand of government itself indicated in the Government Order that benefit of said scheme should be available to as many teachers as possible. 23. 23. Reliance has been placed by counsel for petitioners on the Division Bench judgment of Sri Ranjana Kakkar versus State of U.P. and others, 2008 (10) ADJ 63 (DB), judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 Shikha Sharma versus State of U.P. and other and connected matter Writ A No.14575 of 2021 and other connected matters, Jagteshwari Maurya versus State of U.P. and others Writ Petition No. 2727 (Service Single) of 2014 and various other judgments to submit that issue in question already stands concluded by cited judgments. 24. Learned counsel for petitioners has also placed reliance on the case of Usha Rani vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ A No.17399 of 2019 decided on 07.11.2019 in similar facts and circumstances. 25. Mr. J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf State has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that all the judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioners are distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the specific provisions and prohibitions of Rules, 1981 had not been considered in any of them. It has been further submitted that the Rules of 1981 specifically provided that giving of options was mandatory upon all the teachers. It is further submitted that Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981 had a clear stipulation that option once given could not be changed. It has also been submitted that the Government Orders issued on the subject pertain only for a change in the option and were inapplicable in the present cases where option was not given by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and such option was therefore deemed in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1981. It has been further submitted that even otherwise the option either given explicitly or deemed to have been given could not have been changed and therefore there was no occasion for any confusion which would require removal under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981 and as such the Government Orders on the subject are inapplicable upon the petitioners. 26. It has been further submitted that even otherwise option once exercised by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners could have been changed only by such predecessor-in-interest being the teachers who were duly appointed. 26. It has been further submitted that even otherwise option once exercised by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners could have been changed only by such predecessor-in-interest being the teachers who were duly appointed. It is submitted that in none of the Government Orders, is any provision for family members of such teachers to exercise any option of revision particularly when the teacher concerned himself did not require any change in the option either given explicitly or deemed. 27. He has submitted that it is settled principle of law, if a statute provides something to be done in a certain manner then the thing has to be done in that very manner; from the bare perusal of the aforesaid Rules (emphasis on Rule 4), a teacher of a State Aided Non-Government Institution had to exercise an option to choose the date of his/her superannuation as it was, as per Chapter III Regulation 21 of Intermediate Education Act, 1921; either at the age of 58 years or 60 years and on the basis of this exercise of option, his or her retiral benefits were to be determined. 28. It has also been submitted that the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that vide Government Order dated 06.10.1990 read with Government Order dated 04.11.1991, successors of the deceased had an option to revoke the last exercise option is in-correct since the Government Order dated 06.10.1990 was issued in continuation of Government Orders dated 31.03.1978, 28.07.1978 and 03.11.1978, which did not pertain to death come retirement gratuity. 29. Submission is that Paragraph 2 of the Government Order dated 06.10.1990 no doubt, engendered some confusion due to ambiguous and incongruous words employed therein. The tenor of the Government Order however, unambiguously indicates that it was not intended to confer any right in favour of a teacher, to withdraw the option already exercised by him for gratuity and countersigned/accepted by the Competent Authority under and in accordance with the Government Order dated 10.08.1978 read with the Niyamawali issued vide Government Order dated 29.08.1981. 30. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to language of Government Order dated 17.02.1999 which states that an incumbent (teaching staff) can change its last exercised option on or before 1st July of the year in which he is superannuating (as per his last exercised option). 30. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to language of Government Order dated 17.02.1999 which states that an incumbent (teaching staff) can change its last exercised option on or before 1st July of the year in which he is superannuating (as per his last exercised option). If this thing is allowed then an incumbent who has exercised his option to superannuate at the age of 60 years (which was at that time before amendment), can he be allowed to change his option on attaining the age of 59 years (which was at that time before amendment), since there were only two options which an incumbent had to choose with regard to age of superannuation and those were 58 and 60 years. Dealing with this type of situation a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in the case of State of U.P. V. Prabha Shukla, Special Appeal (D) No.1168 of 2020 has held that an incumbent can exercise his/her option to change his or her earlier option before attaining the age of 58 years only. 31. Learned counsel for respondents have also placed reliance on various judgments which shall be discussed herein-after. 32. Question No.1. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that Government itself was cognizant of disparity of services between teachers employed by Private Aided Institutions and those employed in Government Colleges or schools. To that effect and for removal thereof, the Rules of 1964 were notified which automatically became applicable upon all the teachers in service at that time. Evidently there was no requirement of any option to be exercised by any of the teachers. It was only with the advent of Rules of 1981 that the proposition of teachers giving an option was formulated with the provision that the benefits of Gratuity Scheme would be applicable only upon those teachers who would give an option to superannuate at the age of 58 years. The natural corollary of the aforesaid proposition was that in case of teachers exercising their right to continue in service up-till the age of 60 years, the benefit of gratuity would be unavailable since they would be getting extra salary for the two years of service rendered thereafter. 33. The natural corollary of the aforesaid proposition was that in case of teachers exercising their right to continue in service up-till the age of 60 years, the benefit of gratuity would be unavailable since they would be getting extra salary for the two years of service rendered thereafter. 33. A perusal of the wordings of various Government Orders makes it evident that the government itself was quite anxious regarding the applicability of the Gratuity Scheme upon as many teachers as possible; clearly the scheme was in the nature of a beneficial provision provided by the State Government to such teachers. 34. The issue of whether the prohibition indicated in the Rules of 1981 regarding change in option can be done away with by means of Government Orders without effecting any amendment in the Rules of 1981 would be required to be considered. 35. The Rules of 1981 have been effected since 30.06.1978. Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules clearly stipulate an option to be given by a teacher for superannuation either at the age of 58 years or continuance in service up-till the age of 60 years. Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981 clearly stipulate that government would be empowered to issue various orders for complete and effective implementation of the Gratuity Scheme as notified by the Rules of 1981 in case there is any difficulty or confusion with regard to such implementation. 36. In all the Government Orders indicated herein-above, it has been indicated that effective implementation of the Gratuity Scheme could not be made due to non exercise of option by most of the teachers. The Government Orders also indicate that option could not be exercised by the majority of teachers due to certain confusion or administrative laxity. Time and again Government Orders have been issued as indicated herein-above extending the limitation for exercise of option to be included under the Gratuity Scheme. 37. In paragraph 44 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is itself admitted that the Government Order dated 06.10.1990 engendered some confusion due to ambiguous language employed therein. 38. Clearly the Government itself envisaged the scheme to be beneficial in nature. 37. In paragraph 44 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is itself admitted that the Government Order dated 06.10.1990 engendered some confusion due to ambiguous language employed therein. 38. Clearly the Government itself envisaged the scheme to be beneficial in nature. A reading of not only the Rules of 1981 but the various Government Orders on the subject also clearly indicate that concept of death-cum-retirement gratuity was required to be implemented upon as many teachers as possible in order to provide them benefit of a beneficial scheme. The government itself appears to be quite anxious that the Gratuity Scheme should be made applicable upon as many teachers as possible. 39. A conspectus of the Rules and Government Orders issued by State particularly the Rules of 1964, 1981 and various Government Orders on the subject are all indicative of the fact that Government itself realized the serious disparity in service benefits pertaining to teacher employed in Private Aided Institutions viz-a-viz those employed in Government Institutions and a conscious effort was made by the Government at all times to remove such disparity. From the Government Orders issued in 1978 also it is evident that not only disparity pertaining to gratuity but to other pensionary benefits was also sought to be removed. Although the Rules of 1964 became automatically applicable upon teachers of Private Institutions but the Rules of 1981 took a divergent stand with such teachers requiring to give their options either to continue in service uptill the age of 58 years or the extended period of 60 years with the benefit of death-cum-retirement scheme being applicable only in case of continuation in service uptill the age of 58 years. 40. The aspect of such option was enforced for the first time by means of Rules of 1981 with Rule 3 requiring such an option within a period of six months from the teachers already in service and rule 4 requiring such an option from subsequent appointee within a period of two years from the date of regularization/confirmation in service. The said rule also indicated that options once given would be considered to be final. 41. The said rule also indicated that options once given would be considered to be final. 41. As such submission of learned counsel for respondents is that the prohibition indicated in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981 would be construed to be final in nature under which an option once given or deemed to have been given cannot be changed. It has therefore been submitted that such a prohibition indicated in the Rules cannot be construed to have been waived by means of administrative Government Orders. 42. So far as aforesaid submission is concerned, it is evident that Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981 clearly stipulates that the Government would have power to issue directions to remove any difficulty or confusion with regard to implementation of the said Rules. The said Rule is clearly an exception to the prohibition indicated in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981 and specifically empowers the State Government to issue necessary directions for removal of such difficulty or confusion. 43. A perusal of the Government Orders issued subsequent to the Rules of 1981 enhancing the time limit for providing of options clearly state repeatedly that the aforesaid prohibition is creating a difficulty in smooth implementation of the beneficial concept of death-cum retirement gratuity. The respondents themselves have in their counter affidavit admitted the fact that there was confusion with regard to implementation of the Government Order dated 06.10.1990. Seen in that light, it is apparent that once statutory rules themselves provide an exception clause to the prohibitory nature of a previous paragraph or rule, such subsequent clause of the Rule can be construed to be an explanation to the mandatory prohibitory clause. Seen from that view, it is clear that Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981 is more in the nature of an explanation/exception to the prohibitory clause of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981. 44. Since the various Government Orders issued subsequent to the notification of Rules of 1981 repeatedly indicate that they are being issued in order to remove doubt and confusion regarding implementation of the death-cum-retirement gratuity scheme, such Government Orders can be deemed to have been issued in terms of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981. 45. 44. Since the various Government Orders issued subsequent to the notification of Rules of 1981 repeatedly indicate that they are being issued in order to remove doubt and confusion regarding implementation of the death-cum-retirement gratuity scheme, such Government Orders can be deemed to have been issued in terms of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1981. 45. It is also relevant that by means of Government Order dated 17.02.1999, it has been indicated that due to unavoidable circumstances, teachers of Private Aided Institutions were unable to provide an option in terms of Government Orders dated 06.10.1990 and 04.11.1991 and therefore it had been provided that due to constant demand for providing such facility, the State has taken a decision that option once earlier given could be changed by a teacher of such an institution within one year prior to his date of superannuation. The said Government Order along with the one issued subsequently on 17.11.1999 provided a change in the option granted earlier. The said Government Order is in continuation of the Government Order dated 06.10.1990 which in paragraph 3 states that the facility of option would be available also in case of a teacher who had already earlier given such an option. 46. Learned counsel for respondent State has submitted that even if assuming that the option once given could have been changed in terms of the Government Orders but such a facility even then would be available only to those teachers who had specifically given their options in terms of provisions of Rules of 1981 and would not be applicable in those cases where the options were not explicitly given but was deemed. 47. With regard to aforesaid submission, the wordings of Rules 3 and 4 conjointly of the Rules of 1981 makes it apparent that although specific option was required to be exercised by the teachers within stipulated time period but such an option was also deemed in case it was not given within the stipulated time period. The natural corollary of the aforesaid conditions would be that an option of such a teacher would be deemed in case it is not explicitly given. Thus option stands exercised in any case. 48. The natural corollary of the aforesaid conditions would be that an option of such a teacher would be deemed in case it is not explicitly given. Thus option stands exercised in any case. 48. Evidently, the provisions of Rule 4 of 1981 specifically with regard to deeming clause excluded a number of teachers which did not solve the problem of disparity between teachers appointed in Private Aided Institutions and those working in Government Institutions and as such the Government felt, as evidenced in provisions of various Government Orders that the same did not extend the beneficial provisions which was the primary concern of the Government. As per wordings of subsequent Government Orders, this was the reason for giving an opportunity to change the option once earlier given. 49. From a perusal of the Rules of 1964 read with Rules of 1981 and various Government Orders on the subject, it is evident that the provisions of implementation of death-cum-retirement gratuity upon such teachers employed by Private Aided Institutions was a beneficial provision notified for the purpose of inclusion of as many teachers as possible in the Gratuity Scheme. 50. The Full Bench in the case of Prabha Kakkar (supra) has also answered the question no.1 to the effect that the act of acceptance of option by the Deputy Director of Education and its communication to the employee was necessary in order to make it final. It was further held that counter signature of District Inspector of Schools on such option could neither be taken as acceptance nor fully attached any kind of finality. As such, it can be discerned that the Full Bench has also taken the view that option once given in terms of the Government Orders dated 10.08.1978, 06.10.1990 and 04.11.1991 even after the advant of Rules of 1981 can be changed. It was upon answering of first question that the Full Bench concluded that questions pertaining to irrevocability of option exercised by a teacher and its option to be changed or revoked, was not required to be answered. 51. Evidently, the Full Bench having considered not only the aforesaid Government Orders but also the Government Order dated 17.02.1999 has also come to the conclusion that no finality could be attached to an option once given by a teacher and such an option once given can be changed or revoked subsequently as well as. 52. 51. Evidently, the Full Bench having considered not only the aforesaid Government Orders but also the Government Order dated 17.02.1999 has also come to the conclusion that no finality could be attached to an option once given by a teacher and such an option once given can be changed or revoked subsequently as well as. 52. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sushila Yadav versus State of U.P. and other (2021)10 ADJ 235 in which also the entire gamut of Government Orders and decision on the point have been considered particularly with regard to judgment rendered by other Coordinate Benches in the case of Usha Rani versus State of U.P. and others; Writ A No.17399 of 2019, Noor Jahan versus State of U.P. and others, Writ A No.40568 of 2016 and Smt. Omwati versus State of U.P. and others Writ A No.8679 of 2018 as well as in the case of Smt. Mala Tripathi versus State of U.P. and others. The said judgment also takes into account the judgment rendered by Ranjana Kakkar (supra) and Prabha Shukla (supra). Upon examination of various aspects, the judgment in the case of Prakash Chandra Sharma versus Deputy Director of Education, Bareilly Region Bareilly and others (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1155 and in the case of Division Bench Judgment of State of U.P. and another versus Shashthi Dutt Shastri and others, 2017 (Suppl.) ADJ 768(DB). The relevant paragraphs are as under : "..........More importantly neither the 1963 Rules nor the various Government Orders issued in connection with the right of teachers working in primary educational institutions administered by the Board to claim gratuity provided for the same being lost forever or being forfeited consequent to a failure to submit an aged option. ........" "...................The absence of a negative stipulation and a prescription specifying the adverse consequences of inaction clearly operates in favour of teachers and the petitioners here. The Court also bears in mind the undisputed position on facts which has emerged of teachers being permitted to submit their options prior to attaining the age of superannuation and latest by 1st of July of the academic year in which they were to attain the age of retirement. The Court also bears in mind the undisputed position on facts which has emerged of teachers being permitted to submit their options prior to attaining the age of superannuation and latest by 1st of July of the academic year in which they were to attain the age of retirement. Once that is conceded to be the the accepted procedure consistently followed, the Court fails to find any justification to hold teachers to be under an obligation to submit an option immediately upon entry into service. .........................." 53. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered by another Coordinate Bench in the case of Shikha Sharma versus State of U.P. and others; in Writ A No.14575 of 2021 and other connected matters in which also after examining various aspects of the matter and particularly the Government Orders it has been held that an option once given earlier could be changed in terms of the Government Order particularly since no Government Order or amendment in instructions or rules have been issued restoring the provision prevailing prior to Government Order dated 06.10.1990. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows : "12. Considering the fact that the State Government by the aforesaid Government Order dated 06.10.1990 provided for a deeming clause of acceptance of option of retirement at the age of 58 years from all the teachers, who did not exercise an option, there does not appears to be any fault on the part of the deceased husband of the petitioner. No Government Order, amendment in instructions or rules have been brought on record which restores the position prevailing prior to the Government Order dated 06.10.1990. Therefore, it is clear that even the teachers who did not exercise their option to retire at the age of 58 years would not be deprived of benefit of gratuity only because the deceased did not exercise the option of retirement at the age of 58 years. Further reason is that it was open for the deceased to change his option as per subsequently issued government order a year before the date of superannuation but his/her untimely death robbed him/her of the opportunity." 54. Further reason is that it was open for the deceased to change his option as per subsequently issued government order a year before the date of superannuation but his/her untimely death robbed him/her of the opportunity." 54. Learned State counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Panchi Devi versus State of Rajasthan and others; (2009) 2 SCC 589 to submit that an employee who had already received terminal benefits on death of the deceased spouse was not entitled to exercise change in option. The said judgment has been relied upon to buttress the submission that option once given cannot be changed particularly since the right which is created for the first time cannot be given retrospective effect. 55. The aforesaid judgment clearly on the facts is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case since the rights had accrued prospectively and not retrospectively whereas in the present case, all the Government Orders clearly have retrospective operation since they referred to the earlier Government Orders under which options were sought but could not be given due to administrative laxity or for any other reason. 56. With regard to interpretation of a beneficial provision, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya versus District Development Officer Dahod and others reported in AIR 2022 (SC) 2119 has held that beneficial provisions are required to be construed liberally in order to provide maximum effect to such provision. It has been held as under:- "13. When social security legislations are being interpretated, it always has to be interpreted liberally with a beneficial interpretation and has to be given the widest possible meaning which the language permits, known as Beneficial Interpretation. When a statute is meant for the benefit of a particular class and if a word in the statute is capable of two meanings, i.e., one which would preserve the benefits and one which would not, then the former is to be adopted. 14. Maxwell on Beneficial Construction holds the following: "The construction of a statute must not strain the words as to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of the language. Nevertheless, even where the usual meaning of the words falls short of the object of the legislature, a more extended meaning will be attributed to them if they are fairly susceptible to it. Nevertheless, even where the usual meaning of the words falls short of the object of the legislature, a more extended meaning will be attributed to them if they are fairly susceptible to it. The relaxation of strictly literal rule of interpretation is known as beneficial construction" 15. This Court had an occasion to examine discussions in detail about constructive and welfare legislations. The judgment in State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money, 1976 (1) SCC 822 followed with Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, 1978 (2) SCC 213 ; Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal and others, 1979 (2) SCC 274 and later the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and others, 2001 (7) SCC 1 are the exposition of law on the subject." 57. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the stringent prohibition indicated in Rule 4 of the Rules of 1981 could have been explained or whittled down by subsequent Government Orders in terms of Rules 20 of the Rules of 1981 particularly since all the subsequent Government Orders clearly stipulate that they have been issued permitting a change in earlier option due to confusion or difficulty being faced in proper implementation of the Rules. 58. Considering the aforesaid, submission of learned counsel for respondents State that option once given could not have been changed in terms of Government Orders without a corresponding change in the Rules themselves does not hold good ground. As such, it is held that the option once earlier given explicitly or deemed by a member of teaching staff of Intermediate College could have been revised in terms of the subsequent Government Orders without any amendment in the statutory Rules itself. 59. Question No.2 with regard to the aforesaid question, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjana Kakkar (supra) has clearly held that where an incident cannot be foreseen and a person is invited to give their options according to his own wisdom, his choice should not be allowed to work to his disadvantage after his death particularly in case the untimely death makes his option unworkable and also to provide maximum benefits of social security as would be intention was of the Government Order. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows : "11. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows : "11. The providence to survive upto the age of 58 years could not be known to the teachers exercising options. The God has not yet bestowed the man with the powers to foresee or to predict death. The man arranges his affairs in accordance with the wisdom given to him by God. The Almighty has reserved the powers of sustaining and guiding human destiny. No one, who was required to give an option under the scheme, could have predicted, whether he would survive to claim the benefits. 12. Where an event cannot be foreseen and a person is invited to give options with the understanding to arrange his affairs according to his own wisdom, his choice should not be allowed to work to his disadvantage after his death. He should be provided with the maximum of the benefits and social security after his death. Late Prof. Amamath Kakkar did not live beyond the age of 45 years. He may have planned for his affairs upto the age of 60 years, both for himself and his family. The God however willed otherwise. His untimely death made his option unworkable. In order to give him maximum benefits of the social security, which was the intention of the Government Order dated 24.12.1983, he could not be denied the D.C.R.G payable to him and calculated upto to his death, for the completed years of service rendered by him to the University. His life was cut short and thus his option became unworkable and futile, on his death at the age of 45 years. He could not be pinned down to his option by the University, to deprive his family of the gratuity earned by him and payable to his family. 13. The 'gratuity' is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary as something given voluntarily, or beyond obligation usually in return for, or in anticipation of some service. The Black's Law Dictionary defined gratuity as 'a recompense or reward of service or benefits given voluntarily without solicitation or promise. 13. The 'gratuity' is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary as something given voluntarily, or beyond obligation usually in return for, or in anticipation of some service. The Black's Law Dictionary defined gratuity as 'a recompense or reward of service or benefits given voluntarily without solicitation or promise. Late Amarnath Kakkar could have given up gratuity voluntarily on his option, if he had the occasion to avail the benefit of two years additional service, When he could not avail the benefit and was not in a position to change his option, he cannot be denied the reward by way of gratuity payable to him on completing 58 years of service. The event provided in his option i.e. the extended service upto the age of 60 years, became an impossibility to be performed by him and thus his option would be deemed to be revoked in law, on the principles of frustration of contract." 60. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagteshwari Maurya versus State of U.P. and others;Writ Petition No.2727(S/S) of 2014 has also taken a similar view considering the Government Order dated 17.11.1999 and also placing reliance on other Coordinate Bench judgment in the case of Renu Gupta versus State of U.P. and others, Writ A No.14397 of 2019 and Mala Tripathi versus State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No.6173(S/S) of 2014. 61. Learned State counsel however has placed reliance in the case of Prabha Shukla versus State of U.P., Special Appeal Defective No.1168 of 2020 to submit that it has been held that once an option for extension of service beyond the normal age of retirement with denial of benefit of gratuity had been exercised by a teacher, the family members could not have claimed the benefit in conflict with option already exercised by the deceased. 62. However a perusal of aforesaid judgment makes it apparent that the facts and circumstances of the case were quite distinguishable since the employee therein had passed away after attaining the age more than 59 years and as such the Division Bench came to a conclusion that since he had died after attaining the age of 59 years and did not exercise his option for change, then the family members cannot claim the benefit of such change. 63. 63. In the present facts and circumstances of the petitions, none of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners have passed away after attaining the age of 59 years and therefore the option of change was unavailable to them at the time of their demise. Clearly the aforesaid judgment as such is inapplicable. 64. Another aspect of the matter pertaining to change of option also is that the primary purpose of denying benefit of gratuity to an employee exercising his option to continue in service till the age of 60 years appears to be that in such circumstances the said teacher would be employed for a further period of two years and would also be getting salary for the post that he holds. Clearly the payment of gratuity as such was linked to the extra years of service rendered by the teacher. 65. In the present bunch of petition, the predecessors of petitioner have passed away without performing the extra years of service between the ages of 58 years to 60 years. Thus the very purpose of denying gratuity to such persons is inapplicable. 66. Viewed from this perspective, grant of benefit of gratuity in such circumstances is directly relatable to the Rules of 1981 itself and therefore there is no occasion for the respondents to hold that change in option is being sought by family members of the deceased who fail to exercise the option since the grant of benefit of gratuity is the natural corollary of extra years of service not being rendered by the predecessors of petitioner. The second aspect of the matter of course, is that predecessors have passed away prior to the time when they were required to submit their options in terms of the various Government Orders and therefore also since they did not have an opportunity to change their option, naturally the family member being successors to their interest would have a right to exercise that option in terms of the Government Order. As such answer to the question is that the grant of gratuity is a natural corollary to services not being rendered for the extra period of two years in terms of conditions of Rules of 1981 and as such, such an option once granted earlier can definitely be revised. 67. As such answer to the question is that the grant of gratuity is a natural corollary to services not being rendered for the extra period of two years in terms of conditions of Rules of 1981 and as such, such an option once granted earlier can definitely be revised. 67. In view of aforesaid answers to the two questions, it is held that the denial of grant of gratuity to the petitioners in terms of conditions of Rules of 1981 is clearly contrary to provisions not only of the aforesaid Rules of 1981 but to the consequent Government Orders as well. Considering the aforesaid, the orders impugned rejecting grant of benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioners being bad in law are quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the concerned authority to make payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioners in terms of Rules of 1981. Calculation for same and actual payment of benefits shall be accorded within a period of six months from the date of a copy of this is produced before the concerned authority. 68. Resultantly, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.