1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26937 Judgment Reserved on 11.2.2025 Delivered on 27 . 2.2025 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8556 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Swadesh Kumari Respondent :- U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Sinha,Mahesh Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Tripathi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K.Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents. 2. Petitioner was a teacher in a school run by Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board now Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. When she was about to retire at the age of 58 years, she approached this court that she may be allowed to work till age of 60 years, by way of a Writ Petition bearing number 26209 of 2001, which was allowed vide order dated 10.4.2007 with a direction, she may be allowed to work till age of 60 years. 3. Aforesaid order dated 10.4.2007 was passed on basis of a judgement passed by this Court in Smt. Satyawati Verma Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr, 1998 (1) A.W.C. 681. 4. Now the petitioner has filed this writ petition stating that once this Court has held that the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1921’) are applicable to the teachers of the college managed by the Electricity Board and since she was allowed to work up to age of 60 years, therefore, she is entitled for gratuity also. However, her claim was rejected by a reasoned order 2 dated 8.12.2008 that her services were not covered with the relevant Government Order dated 4.2.2004. The said order is impugned in present case. Relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter:- "३- उपरो विेचनानुसार य स्प वि याच स्देश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या ु मार विद्युत परिषद कन्या परिरषद न्या इण्टर ाले" ासिसमपुर पार ाउस अलगढ़ में सेवा करते हुये दिनांक में सेवा करते हुये दिनांक सेा रत परिषद कन्याे ुये विदनां ३०.०६. २००, ो सेाविनृ. ुय / मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक १० न्यायालय े आदेश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या विदनां १०. ०,- २००3 सि"समें सेवा करते हुये दिनांक प्रतित परिषद कन्यापक्ष उ०प्र० राज्य विद्युत परिषद कन्या उत्पादन विनगम लिलविमटेड है में में सेवा करते हुये दिनांक याच ो सेाविनृलि. देय; े भुगत परिषद कन्याान े लिलए आदेश पारित किये गये हैं उक्त आदेश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या पारिरत परिषद कन्या विये गये ैं उक्त उ आदेश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या ा मुख्य अंश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या विनम्नत परिषद कन्या /:- In the case of Smt. Satyuavati Verma Vs. U.P. State Electricity board 1998(1) A.W.C. 681 this Court in similar facts has held that the age of retirement of teachers even in schools and colleges run by the Electricity board would be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and as such they would retire at the age of 60 years, in such view of the matter the petitioner would also be entitled to retire at the age of 60 years and not at 58 years. As such the impugned order dated 27.06.2001 is quashed. The petitioner who has already worked and has been paid salary till 30.06.2004 has rightly been done so. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment if her retrial dues as if she had been in service till 30.06.2004. As such retrial dues shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner in accordance with law forthwith. उपरो आदेश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या भ मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक १० न्यायालय द्वारा इस त परिषद कन्याथ्य ा संज्ञान लेत परिषद कन्याे ुये वि संदर्भिभत परिषद कन्या विद्यालय उ०प्र० माध्यविम शिश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्याक्षा अतिGविनयम १९२१ से अच्छाविदत परिषद कन्या ैं उक्त याच K सेाविनृलि. K आयु ५M षN से बढ़ में सेवा करते हुये दिनांकार ६० षN विये "ाने े विनदPश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या विदये गये / मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक १० न्यायालय द्वारा उपर; आदेश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या पारिरत परिषद कन्या विये "ाने K तित परिषद कन्याशिQ १० . ०, . २००3 े पूN से श कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्याासनादेश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या विदनां , . २ . २००, े प्राविGान लागू Qे परन्त परिषद कन्याु "सा उपर उल्लेT विया गया उ प्राविGान मात्र अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त अश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्याासKय सायत परिषद कन्याा प्राप्त माध्यविम विद्यालय; में सेवा करते हुये दिनांक श कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्याासन द्वारा सृसि"त परिषद कन्या पद; पर लागू ोगा विन्त परिषद कन्याु रिरट यातिचा में सेवा करते हुये दिनांक याच द्वारा इस त परिषद कन्याथ्य ो सामने नीं लाया गया। लाया गया/ याच द्वारा अमानना यातिचा े साQ प्रस्त परिषद कन्याुत परिषद कन्या प्रत्याेदन में सेवा करते हुये दिनांक इस विबन्दु ो अलग से "ोड़र ६२ षN पर सेाविनृलि. विषय उ श कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्याासनादेश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या विदनां , . २ . २००, सि"सा लाभ उसे अनुमन्य न े आGार पर सेाविनृलि. लाभ; K गणना K मांग K गय ैं उक्त उपरो विेचनानुसार याच ो ६२ षN K सेाविनृलि. आयु पर सेाविनृलि. लाभ K अनुमन्यत परिषद कन्याा विनयमानुसार देय नीं लाया गया। ैं उक्त साQ चूंवि विद्युत परिषद कन्या परिरषद न्या इण्टर ाले" ासिसमपुर पार ाउस अलगढ़ में सेवा करते हुये दिनांक विद्युत परिषद कन्या परिरषद द्वारा संचालिलत परिषद कन्या ए आदेश पारित किये गये हैं उक्तं वि. पोविषत परिषद कन्या विद्यालय अत परिषद कन्याः उक्त विद्यालयों की उ विद्यालय; K मNचारिरय; े सेा संबंG भुगत परिषद कन्याान K ायNा स्यं विद्युत परिषद कन्या परिरषद द्वारा लागू विनयम; आविद े अनुसार विद्युत परिषद कन्या परिरषद द्वारा K "ान ैं उक्त श कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्याासनादेश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या संख्या - १२3 / १५ - M - २००, - १६ विनयम / २००३ ट०स० विदनां , फरर २००, े प्राविGान याच े संबंG में सेवा करते हुये दिनांक प्रभा नीं लाया गया। ोगा/ उपयुN र्भिणत परिषद कन्या स्थिस्Qतित परिषद कन्या े प्राश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या में सेवा करते हुये दिनांक ए आदेश पारित किये गये हैं उक्तत परिषद कन्यादद्वारा श्रमत परिषद कन्या स्देश कुमारी विद्युत परिषद कन्या ु मार ा प्रत्याेदन विदनां १M.०२. २००M विनस्त परिषद कन्याारिरत परिषद कन्या विया "ात परिषद कन्याा /" 3 (Emphasis supplied) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the judgement passed in Smt. Satyawati Verma (Supra) that provisions of Act, of 1921 were held to be applicable in respect of recognized institution of U.P. Electricity Board, therefore, benefits granted to the teachers of College governed under the Act of 1921 were also applicable to the petitioner and therefore, prayed that impugned order be set aside. 6. Per Contra learned Additional Chief Standing Council has supported the impugned order and refers Government Order dated 4.2.2004, whereby the retirement age was increased from 60 to 62 years, subject to certain conditions that, it was applicable only on non-government aided secondary schools as well as only to the teachers working against sanctioned post and he refers relevant part of the impugned order that in present case aforesaid both conditions were not fulfilled, therefore, claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. It is not disputed that college concerned was managed by the U. P. Electricity Board and services of the petitioner was governed by The Electricity Service Commission Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulation 1978. 9. The Government Order dated 4.2.2004 was neither adopted by the Electricity Board nor an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit any option as required, therefore, there is force in the argument of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that Government Order dated 4.2.2004 was not applicable in the case of petitioner. 10. In the above background, there are certain other factors which are adverse to his claim that petitioner has taken some other benefits including free residential accommodation and electricity at subsidised rates, which were not extended to teachers of other aided colleges. 4 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Smt. Satyawati Verma (Supra). However, Court is of the view that it was only in regard to age of retirement being extended from 58 or 60 years. No further consideration was made as to whether what would be the effect of any prior Government Order as to whether it would be automatically applicable or not. 12. The petitioner was allowed to work till the age of 60 years by an interim order dated 24.5.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.26209 of 2001. Said writ petition was finally allowed vide order dated 10.4.2007. However, petitioner has neither filed any amendment nor claimed that she may be allowed to work till the age of 62 years or to give any option or to give advantage of said G.O. dated 4.2.2004 issued much prior to disposal of the writ petition. For reference order dated 10.4.2007 passed in the aforesaid writ petition is reproduced hereinafter: “The petitioner was a teacher in the Inter college run by the respondent-UP.Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). As per the regulations of the Corporation, the age of retirement of its employees was 58 years at the relevant time. The college was recognized by the Board under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Since the age of retirement under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was enhanced from 58 to 60 years, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the order dated 27.6.2001 whereby she was informed that she would be retiring on 30.6.202 on attaining the age of 58 years. A further prayer has been made that the petitioner may be permitted to continue to work as teacher till the age of 60 years and be paid her regular salary. By means of the interim order dated 24.5.2002 the petitioner was permitted to continue to work till the age of 60 years and as such she has been in service as teacher till 30.0.2004 and has also been paid her salary. In the case of Smt. Sarywari Verma vs. U.P.State Electricity Board 1998(1) A.W.C.681 this Court, in similar facts, has held that the age of retirement of teachers even in schools and colleges run by the Electricity Board would be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate 5 Education Act, 1921 and as such they would retire at the age of 60 years. In such view of the matter the petitioner would also be entitled to retire at the age of 60 years, and not at 58 years. As such the impugned order dated 27.6.2001 is quashed. The petitioner who has already worked and has been paid salary till 30.6.2004, has rightly been done so. The petitioner shall be entitled to payment of her retiral dues as if she had been in service till 30.6.2004. As such retiral dues shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner, in accordance with law, forthwith. This writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost“ 13. Subsequently petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No. 6764 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 4.2.2008 that his claim be decided in accordance with law, thereafter the impugned order was passed. 14. Court is of considered opinion that the Government Order dated 4.2.2004 has to be adopted by the respondent College run by Electricity Board since it was based on certain conditions. 15. Service conditions of teachers of College concerned as well as other colleges are different which has been referred in Smt. Satyawati Verma (Supra) as well as in the counter affidavit also, therefore, there must be specific adoption of Government Order dated 4.2.2004 and since it was not adopted by Electricity Board, therefore, benefit of it could not be claimed, since retirement age was not increased in the concerned College from 60 to 62 years. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, claim of the petitioner for gratuity was rightly rejected since not only the relevant Government Order dated 04.02.2004 was not adopted by the Electricity Board as well as petitioner has not prayed in the pending writ petition at that time wherein an interim order was passed that petitioner be allowed to work up to the age of 62 years and disposed of later on in the year 2007 or to provide an option for the purpose of gratuity, therefore, such relief 6 cannot be granted to the petitioner by way of subsequent writ petition when the Government Order as referred above was not even adopted, and its terms and conditions were not satisfied, therefore, claim of the petitioner has no legal basis. Impugned Order has no illegality. 17. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad