JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. Aggrieved by the decision of the Writ Court dated 28.03.2024 in WP No.13565 of 2022, the appellant has preferred this Appeal. 2 . The said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant seeking to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.07.2021 informing the appellant that she is superannuated from the services of the first respondent School with effect from 31.05.2021 and for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to reinstate the appellant forthwith as per G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 25.02.2021 which enhanced the age of retirement of Government Servants from 58 to 60. 3. The appellant who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the first respondent School attained the age of 58 was thus superannuated under the impugned communication dated 22.07.2021 with effect from 31.05.2021. It is the contention of the appellant that she would be entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020 wherein the Government increased the age of retirement of Government employees from 58 to 59 and G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 25.02.2021 under which the age of retirement was increased to 60. Since the appellant attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021 after the issuance of both the Government Orders viz. G.O.Ms. Nos. 51 and 29, according to the appellant, she should be extended the benefits under the said Government Orders and should be treated to have worked till she completed the age of 60. 4. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondents contending that the Government Orders would apply only to Government servants and not to the appellant, who is an employee of a Private School. It was also the contention of the respondents that it is the contract of employment between the parties that would govern the situation and the Government Orders passed, increasing the age of retirement, would not be applicable to the appellant, who was in private employment. The Writ Court concurred with the contentions of the respondents and dismissed the Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Government Orders are made specifically applicable to Aided Educational Institutions and employees of all constitutional statutory bodies, Public Sector Undertaking including all State Corporations, Local Bodies, Boards, Commissions, Societies etc. The Writ Court concurred with the contentions of the respondents and dismissed the Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Government Orders are made specifically applicable to Aided Educational Institutions and employees of all constitutional statutory bodies, Public Sector Undertaking including all State Corporations, Local Bodies, Boards, Commissions, Societies etc. and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the first respondent being a recognized School though it is private would be bound by the Government Orders and hence the action of the first respondent in retiring the appellant on 31.05.2021 is against the Government Orders. 6. Contending contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent is a private unaided school and as such the Government Orders relied upon by the appellant would not apply to it. It is under no obligation to increase the age of retirement on the basis of what has been done by the Government. The learned counsel would also point out that, however, taking queue from the Government Orders, the Managing Committee of the first respondent had decided to increase the age of retirement from 58 to 60 with effect from 31.03.2022. He would also point out that the circular issued by the first respondent on 28.03.2022 makes it clear that the increase in age will apply to those who are in regular service as on date under due to retire by superannuation from 31.03.2022 onwards. The increase being prospective in nature cannot be applied to the appellant. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. The Government had increased the age of retirement by way of the two Government orders referred to supra from 58 to 60. The Government Order makes it clear that it will apply to all teaching and non-teaching staff working in Aided Educational Institutions, and Employees of all constitutional/statutory bodies, Public Sector Undertaking, including all Corporations, Local Bodies, Boards, Commissions, Societies, etc. These Government Orders will, however, not apply to private institutions. 9. Insofar as private institutions are concerned, they do not receive any grant in aid from the Government and all that they require is a recognition. Merely because they take recognition from the Education Department of the Government, they cannot be treated as aided institutions or statutory bodies in order to come within the sweep of the Government Orders referred to Supra. Merely because they take recognition from the Education Department of the Government, they cannot be treated as aided institutions or statutory bodies in order to come within the sweep of the Government Orders referred to Supra. The private employment is a matter of contract. It cannot be altered by the court or by a third party. 10. As per the regulations of the first respondent, the age of retirement on the date when the appellant attained the age of superannuation was only 58 and not 60. Therefore, the appellant was rightly superannuated on 31.05.2021. If the management chooses to increase the age of retirement after the retirement of the appellant, the appellant cannot seek the same benefit. Once a person had retired, the contract of employment gets terminated. It cannot be renewed by the court. May be the appellant is little unlucky, but that by itself will not be a ground for the writ court to enter into the realm of contract between the parties and impose a completely new contract on them. 11. We therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.