Laxmikant Gangadhar ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1419 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.U. Kamdar, J.

1. This group of writ petitions is raising a common question of interpretation of reg. 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Regulations, 1977. It is rather unfortunate that inspite of number of judgments delivered by the Division Benches of this Court the challenge raised in the present petition has not yet died down. This Rule 7 has been the subject matter of interpretation of at least seven Division Benches of this Court. However, every time a challenge based on a different facet or different aspect of the interpretation of the said regulation is raised and thus it requires to be once again considered afresh. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are once again called upon to consider the challenge and further interpret the said regulation.

2. All these writ petitions are almost identical in so far as facts are concerned. Thus, we take as a sample case facts of Writ Petition No. 1120 of 1996. The facts of this writ petition in so far they are germane to the issue of interpretation of the said regulation are set out as under:

3. The district of Madhya Pradesh including Vidarbha ceased to be a part of Madhya Pradesh with effect from 1.11.1956 and was made part of the State of Bombay. On the Division of the State of Bombay on 1.5.1960 the said eight districts became part of the Maharashtra. These eight districts which form part of the State of Maharashtra is known as Vidarbha Division of the State of Maharashtra. The schools which are run in the said Vidarbha Division were originally forming part of the Madhya Pradesh State and were at the relevant time governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951 and regulations framed thereunder. The conditions of service of the various teachers were governed by the said regulations which are framed and forming part of Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh. The said regulations under Chap. 12 contain reg. 7. The said regulation inter alia provided for fixation of age of superannuation of teachers as one of the conditions of service of the teachers. The said reg. 7 reads as under:

7. Conditions of service of teachers.- (1) All headmasters and teachers except those appointed temporarily for a period of not less than one year shall be on probation for a term of one year which may be extended to two years. If after two years of service, any headmaster or teacher is continued in his appointment, he shall, unless the appointing authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise directs, be deemed to have been confirmed in that appointment. On confirmation, the headmaster or the teacher, as the case may be, shall sign a contract of service in the form prescribed in Form III or IV appended to this Code, as the case may be, as soon as practicable.

Provided that the above provisions shall not apply to the case of any special teacher appointed under a special agreement after taking the sanction of the Board, or to the case of a person already employed on a contract in writing executed before the commencement of this Code, unless he agrees to substitute it with the new agreement.

(2) Scales of pay.-The scales of pay of the headmaster, teachers, clerks and other class IV servants in schools, which are in receipt of Government grant, shall not be less than those sanctioned for the corresponding staff in Government schools.

In the case of schools which are not aided, there shall be a scale of pay, the minimum of which shall not be less than that in Government schools:

Provided that in the case of schools existing on the date of the coming into force of this Code, the provisions of this clause shall not apply for a period of two years from the date:

Provided further that in the case of new school started after the said date, the provisions of this clause shall not apply till the expiry of two years from the date of the first recognition of the school.

(3) The School Committee shall maintain provident fund for the benefit of the teachers and headmaster appointed on written contract in accordance with the Provident Fund Rules prescribed for the teachers in non-pensionable services in the Education Manual.

(4) A teacher shall be entitled to the following leave, viz. -

(a) casual leave for 10 days (which maybe extended to 15 days) in a calendar year;

(b) leave on medical certificate on full average pay for one month for every twelve months spent on duty, subject to the maximum of twelve months in the whole service;

(c) leave for training, provided that the period spent for training at a recognised Training College shall be treated as on duty and may count for provident fund, if the teacher desires to contribute towards provident fund;

(d) maternity leave for three months on full pay:

Provided that such leave under Clause (c) shall be given in the discretion of the School Committee; and

(e) members of the staff inclusive of ministerial and menial establishment of the recognised institutions shall be entitled to privilege leave on the same basis as is admissible to Government servants.

(5) The authorities entitled to sanction leave under reg. 7(4)(a) shall be the Secretary of the Governing Body and that under Clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e), the Governing Body.

(6) In the selection of teachers for appointment the undermentioned considerations among other matters shall be taken into account, namely:

(i) all permanent vacancies or temporary vacancies for a period of more than four months shall be advertised giving full particulars and conditions of service in the local newspapers:

(ii) on receipt of applications, suitable candidates shall be interviewed; and

(iii) that the teachers to be selected for High School classes shall have offered for the degree examination the subjects for which they seek appointment, provided that for subjects which could not be offered for the degree examination of Nagpur University of Saugar this condition may be relaxed after obtaining the sanction of the Recognition Committee given in its discretion.

Proviso.- The provisions of Clause (6)(i) and (ii) above shall not apply to vacancies for a period of four months or less.

(7) In the selection of headmasters for appointment the undermentioned conditions shall be taken into account, namely:

(i) all permanent vacancies shall be advertised, giving full particulars and conditions of service in the local newspapers;

(ii) the appointment shall be made by the Governing Body after interviewing suitable candidates;

(iii) no person who is not trained and has less than seven years' experience of teaching shall be eligible for the post of a headmaster.

These regulations were in fact in force till and until the provisions of Maharashtra Secondary Education Board Act, 1965 came into force. However, sometime in or about 1963 a Secondary Schools Code was formulated for the secondary schools. Under cl. 82.1 of the said Secondary Schools Code the age of superannuation has been prescribed as 58 years. However, exception is carved out insofar as teachers who are working in Non-Government Secondary School in Vidarbha region as on 31st December, 1995 and it is provided that their age of superannuation shall be 60 years. The said Rule 82.1 of the Secondary Schools Code reads as under:

82.1 An employee shall compulsorily retire on the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. Under no circumstances he should be granted extension in service beyond the age of 58 years.

(Exception : The age of compulsory retirement of a permanent teacher or a headmaster in service in a recognised Non-Government Secondary School in Vidarbha, on 31st December, 1995 shall be 60 years).

Thus by virtue of the exception of the said Rule 82.1 it is clear that in so far as teachers in these eight districts of Vidarbha region are concerned, they are governed by the age of 60 years by virtue of reg. 7 of the said Regulations to the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951. Thus, in effect the said regulation as well as the Secondary Schools Code continue to operate in the State of Maharashtra even after the coming into force of Maharashtra Secondary Education Board Act, 1965.

4. Insofar as the petitioner herein Is concerned, he was appointed in English Medium School of Jalgaon as an Assistant Teacher on 9.3.1963 and on 17.6.1963 he was transferred from I.E.M. School Jalgaon to I.E.M. School Malkapur. Subsequently he was transferred to the Government I.E.M. School Malkapur and this Government I.E.M. School Malkapur has been taken over by Zilla Parishad after constitution of Zilla Parishad in Maharashtra. Thus, on the date of the age of superannuation, the petitioner was an employee of Zilla Parishad School. Accordingly, the petitioner was an employee of a school administered by Zilla Parishad and was a permanent employee as on the date of superannuation i.e. 31,12.1965. It is an admitted position that he was teaching English Medium School and on that basis he is claiming the benefit of the said reg. 7. The school was governed and run by a grant-in-aid Code and subsequently by the Secondary School Code. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.6.1996. By taking into consideration that the age of superannuation is 58 years he was asked to retire by impugned order dated 22.1.1996. It is this order dated 22.1.1966 which is challenged by the petitioner inter alia contending that under reg. 7 of the said Regulations, the petitioner is entitled to be in service upto the age of superannuation of 60 years.

5. The main issue raised in the present petition has in fact been settled by the Apex Court in the case of M.G. Pandke and Ors. v. Municipal Council Hinganghat, District Wardha and Ors. decided on 9.9.1992. While considering the applicability of the said Rule 7, the Apex Court has held as under:

When the Code was enforced in the year 1963, the Act arid the Regulations were holding the field in Vidarbha Division. Under the Act and the Regulations the age of superannuation being 60 years, the Code, while fixing 58 years as the age of superannuation for rest of Maharashtra, permitted the Vidarbha teachers to superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years. The Maharashtra Act which came into force on January 1, 1966 repealed the Act and the Regulations. In Baboolal's case (supra) the High Court referred to the repealing and saving section of the Maharashtra Act and came to the conclusion that there was no provision thereunder to save the regulations. Assuming that the Regulations under the Act stood repealed, the Code which was framed by the Maharashtra Government continued to hold the field. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Code by itself is not statutory and is in the nature of executive instructions. But he strongly relies on reg. 19(7)(xvi) of Maharashtra Regulations and contends that the said Regulation makes it obligatory for the Municipal Council Hinganghat to follow the provisions of the Code. It is for the State Government to frame the Code in whatever manner it likes but when the Code is in operation its provisions have to be followed by the Municipal Council Hinganghat under the mandate of reg. 19(7) (xvi) of Maharashtra Regulations. We see considerable force in the argument of the learned Counsel. The Code has been framed with the purpose of bringing security of service, uniformity, efficiency and discipline in the working of non-Government High Schools. It has to be applied uniformly to the schools run by various Municipal Councils in the State. It is no doubt correct that the Municipal Councils have the power to frame by-laws under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 but if the field is already occupied under the mandate of statutory Maharashtra Regulations, the Municipal Council cannot frame by-laws to the contrary rendering the mandate of the Maharashtra Regulations nugatory. We are of the view that the Municipal Council Hinganghat has outstepped its jurisdiction in framing by-law 4 of the by-laws. We, therefore, direct that the conditions of service of the appellants shall be governed by the Code as enforced by reg. 19(7)(xvi) of the Maharashtra Regulations. By-law 4 of the by-laws shall not be applicable to the appellants.

We also agree with the second contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants. It is not disputed that the High Schools are run by various Municipal Councils in Vidarbha Division under identical circumstances. The conditions of service of the teachers working in these schools are governed by the provisions of the Code as amended from time to time. Only the age of superannuation has been reduced from 60 to 58 years by some of the Municipal Councils by framing by-laws. In the Municipal Councils where there are no such by-laws, the age of superannuation continues to be 60 years. Since 1951, when the Act came into force in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the conditions of service of the teachers in Vidarbha Division have been identical. They have been and are governed by the same statutory provisions and the same Education Code. Historically the teachers working under the Municipal Councils in Vidarbha Division belong to one class. It would not be fair to bring in disparity within the class in the matter of superannuation. We therefore, strike down bylaw 4 of the by-laws framed by Hinganghat Municipal Council as violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the basic contention pertaining to the interpretation of reg. 7 in our view has been concluded.

6. Before we deal with the rival submissions of the parties, it is necessary to first make a survey of the judgments of various Division Benches of this Court already holding filed in so far as the interpretation to reg. 7 of the said Regulations is concerned.

7. In the case of Madhukar Ramchandra Nigde v. Chief Executive Officer and Ors. by the Division Bench of this Court (H. W. Dhabe & M.B. Ghodeswar, JJ.) the issue as to the interpretation of reg. 7 came up for consideration. The main challenge in the said writ petition was whether the service conditions as contemplated under reg. 7 is applicable where the teacher is working in Zilla Parishad Schools and whether the conditions of service prescribed under the said Madhya Pradesh Act and Regulations framed thereunder would be applicable to such a school or not. Secondly, the challenge as to the age of superannuation fixed at 58 years in some cases and 60 years in other cases being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench while considering the aforesaid case has held that the petitioner was not confirmed as on 31.12.1965 and thus, was not entitled to the benefits. On the aforesaid issue, the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed. By the aforesaid judgment, the ratio laid down is that the teacher must be a permanent and confirmed employee as on 31.12.1965.

8. In another case being Prabhakar s/o Ramchandra Deshpande v. Zilla Parishad, Akola and Ors. Writ Petition No. 263 of 1993, decided on 4.2.1993 decided by the Division Bench of H. W. Dhabe & G.D. Patil, JJ. the issue before the Court was that the English Medium School which does not have Secondary section whether entitled to the benefits of the said regulations. The Division Bench has held that only the teachers who are teaching in a secondary school or Middle School attached to the Higher Secondary School and Indian English Middle School are entitled to the benefits of the said reg. 7. The petitioners in that case not belonging to any of the aforesaid schools was held not entitled to the benefits of the said regulations and accordingly the said petition came to be dismissed. Thus, on the ratio of the aforesaid judgment it is now settled that a teacher employed in a secondary school or Indian English Middle School or Middle School attached to the Secondary School is only entitled to the benefits of the said reg. 7.

9. In a group of writ petitions which was decided by the Division Bench (H. W. Dhabe & M.B. Ghodeswar, JJ.) decided on 7.10.1992 (Writ Petition No. 2114 of 1992 alongwith W.P. No. 2155 of 1992 and W.P. No. 2012 of 1992), the issue raised was whether teachers in an upper or secondary primary school are entitled to the benefit of the said reg. 7. It was held that only the secondary school as contemplated under Rule 82.1 of the Secondary Schools Code as well as the exception thereto being Indian English Middle School or Secondary (sic) School attached to the Secondary School are only entitled to the benefits of the said statute.

10. In another case of Mrs. Susheela w/o Sudhakar Pathak v. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Biddhana Writ Petition No. 610 of 1996, decided on 19.3.1998 the matter was once again considered by the Division Bench of B.N. Srikrishna & S.P. Kulkarni, JJ. and by an order and judgment dated 19.3.1998, the Division Bench has held as under:

That even if the teacher is attached in a Standard 5th to 7th Class but if it is a part of the Secondary School then in that event he would be entitled to the benefits of the same. Secondly, the contention raised about the teacher being confirmed on 31.12.1965, the Division Bench has considered that even if the teacher is confirmed in service subsequent to 31.12.1965 then also he is entitled to the benefits of the said regulation if he was appointed for temporary period of one year and that he was on probation for a term of one year which is extended by two years. Thus, according to the Division Bench once the said criteria is complete the person is entitled to the benefit of confirmation as on 31.12.1965.

11. Then comes writ petition in the case of Smt. Malti Madhukarrao Naik v. Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Rural and Urban Development Deptt. Writ Petition No. 687 of 1996, This judgment does not lay down any proposition of law in as much as on the admitted facts of the case the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner in that case was working in the secondary schools and thus was entitled to the benefits.

12. Thereafter another Division Bench in the case of Amin Ahmed s/o Zia Ahmed Quadri v. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Writ Petition No. 873 of 1997, decided on 5.8.1998 by the Division Bench of J.N. Patel and D.D. Sinha, JJ., has considered the resolution dated 27.10.1994 and on the facts of that case that the petitioner not having been appointed as a secondary school teacher it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of the said regulation. It was also found in that case that educational qualification of the petitioner was only matriculate and thus could not have been teaching at all the higher class as claimed by him in the petition. While taking the aforesaid view the Division Bench observed that under resolution of the Government dated 27.10.1994 it is clear that the concession in the age of superannuation Is not applicable to the teacher appointed for teaching 5th to 7th classes and the benefit of retirement is available only to the teachers who are appointed to the classes from 8th to 10th standard.

13. In another judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 1591 of 1989, decided on 21.7.1989 by V.A. Mohta and A.K. Qazi, JJ., the claim of the primary teacher has been rejected.

14. In the light of the aforesaid position in law pertaining to the interpretation of reg. 7 two different important facets are placed before us for the interpretation of the said regulation which are as under:

15. Firstly, it has been contended that whether an employee who is teaching in 5th to 7th Standard in an attached secondary school is entitled to the benefit of the said reg. 7 or not. In support of the aforesaid contention, the respondents have relied upon G.R. dated 27.10.1994 which is in fact a clarificatory G.R. and inter atta provides that the benefits of reg. 7 are not available to the teachers appointed for Standards 5th to 7th attached to the secondary school. In our view the aforesaid contention has been concluded by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case which has been referred to hereinabove being the judgment in Mrs. Susheela w/o Sudhakar Pathak v. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana Writ Petition No. 510 of 1996 when the Division Bench while considering the aforesaid argument, has held as under

6. The next contention raised by Shri B.T. Patil is that the petitioner was teaching only in classes 5th to 7th and, as such, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the concerned Government Resolution. This objection is also unsustainable. In our view, there is no restriction in the concerned Government Resolution about the Standards which the teacher is required to teach. The only qualification in the said Government Resolution is that the teacher must have been teaching in a "Secondary School" run by the erstwhile Janpad Sabha which is taken over by the Zilla Parishad. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of Shri Patil, that because the petitioner was teaching to the classes 5th to 7th, the petitioner is ineligible for the benefits of the concerned Government Resolution, particularly taking into consideration that these were not the only classes conducted by the concerned school but that these classes were intended to prepare the students to pass through 8th to 10th Standards which were also conducted by the said school.

16. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amin Ahmed s/o Zia Ahmed Quadri, Writ Petition No. 873 of 1997, decided on 5.8.1998, particularly the following observations:

The Government Resolution dated 13.11.1995 makes it very clear that the concession in the age of superannuation is not applicable to the teacher appointed for teaching 5th to 7th classes and this benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years is available to the teachers who are appointed to teach the classes from 8th to 10th Standard. We do not find any merit in the petition and thus the same is dismissed.

17. It has been thus urged before us by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in light of the G.R. dated 13.11.1995 and the judgment of the Division Bench in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 873 of 1997 all the teachers who teach from 5th Standard to 7th Standard though the school is attached to the secondary school are not entitled to the benefit of the said reg. 7. In our view, the contention has no merit. Firstly, because the resolution dated 13.11.1995 is merely a clarificatory resolution. The interpretation of reg. 7 must rest on its own interpretation and not by virtue of any clarifications which are subsequently issued as and by way of administrative instructions in the form of Government Resolution. The language of the resolution dated 13.11.1995 leaves no manner of doubt that the said resolution was issued in view of the various questions raised whether the provisions of the said resolution are applicable to the teachers who are teaching in 5th to 7th Standards in the schools attached to the secondary school. In our view, once the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 510 of 1996 has interpreted the aforesaid rule on this facet of the matter thus the G.R. dated 13.11.1995 loses its efficacy. The Division Bench of this Court has in aforesaid matter considered the reg. 7 which confers the benefits on these eight districts of Vidarbha region. In our view, once reg. 7 which has been made applicable to the said eight districts of Vidarbha region is interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court, then to hold that the said benefit flowing from the rule is not available to the petitioners merely because there is a clarificatory G.R. issued by the State Government is not proper nor permissible. Insofar as the Division Bench judgment in the case of Writ Petition No. 873 of 1997 is concerned, we are of the opinion that the said judgment does not decide the issue at hand. In the said judgment on the facts of the case it was found that the teacher in that case was only a matriculate and was not teaching in any secondary school. There only three documents were produced by the petitioner. One document indicated that he was headmaster in primary establishment and the other document indicated that he was appointed as a teacher. In that light of the fact the said findings are recorded therein and held that the petitioner merely being a matriculate was not qualified to teach in the secondary school thus it was held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits. While doing so, the Division Bench referred to the said G.R. dated 13.11.1995 without going into the interpretation of reg. 7 itself. The said Division Bench has also not taken into consideration the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Mrs. Susheela w/o Sudhakar Pathak v. The Chief Executive Officer (supra), decided on 19.3.1998. In the said judgment the Division Bench had already laid down another proposition of law pertaining to the interpretation of Rule 7. In view thereof, we are bound by the Division Bench judgment in the case of Mrs. Susheela w/o Sudhakar Pathak v. The Chief Executive Officer (supra) and inter alia in terms held that said regulation conferred the benefits on those teachers who are teaching in 5th to 7th Standards when their such school is attached to secondary school. Apart from the aforesaid when plain and simple reading of the Rule 7 as interpreted by the Apex Court in M.G. Pandke and Ors. v. Municipal Council Hinganghat, District Wardha and Ors. (supra), decided on 9.9.1992 it is clear that the benefit is available to all the schools even to the middle school if it is attached to the higher secondary school. In view thereof, we are not able to accept the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit in these petitions if they are teaching in 5th to 7th Standards in the middle school though it is attached to the secondary school.

18. This leads us to the second contention raised by the respondent herein. The second contention is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits if the date of retirement is in the middle of the year and not at the end of the year. Insofar as this contention is concerned, the Government has issued a G.R. on 14.10.1992 and it has been clarified that if a person is retiring in a midst of an academic year, then such a person will continue till the last date of the academic year in which he/she attains the age of 60 years. Thus, by the said G.R. dated 14.10.1992 it was clarified that if the person retires in the middle of the academic year, then his services are to be counted as superannuation at the end of the academic year. It is so clarified to protect the disruption in the studies of the students in the midst of the year. In view thereof, the aforesaid issue raised by the respondents has no merit as the G.R. itself is clear in that behalf. Thus, all the teachers who attain the age of superannuation of 60 years in the midst of the academic year will be entitled to continue in service till the end of the academic year and will be entitled to the necessary salary and wages for the continued period.

19. This leads us to the third contention which has been raised by the respondent herein. This contention has been raised inter alia on the basis that those who are temporary teachers as on 31.12.1965 and yet not confirmed though they may have put in more than one year of service are not entitled to the benefits since it is required under reg. 7 that the person must be a confirmed teacher as on 31.12.1965, Insofar as this argument is concerned, it does not survive any further inasmuch as the State Government has by their letter dated 1.3.2000 has clarified the said issue as under:

Point No. 5 :- Whether teachers, whose one year service, was completed on the date 31.12.1965 and in respect of whom, there is no break in service and if such teachers are in service, without making an entry to the effect that their probation period has been extended, then whether benefit can be given to such teachers?

Clarification : As per Rule 68(4) of the Secondary School Code, after 1963-64, no probationary Untrained Teacher can be confirmed (permanent) unless he/ she has become trained (teacher). As per para 2(6) of the Government Resolution dated 4.11.1968, there is a provision that those teachers, who have put in more than two years' service after the training, such teachers shall be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of Teacher for the purpose of pension. As mentioned in the clarification of point No. 4, as the said teachers have completed only one year service on 31.10.1965 and as the said teachers are not permanent in the service, the said benefit is not admissible to them.

Point No. 4 :- As per clarification of point No. 3 "After continuous service of one year or two years, as the case may be, he shall be confirmed in service" shall be read in place of the contents "After service of two continuous years, he shall be confirmed in service", in second and third line of clarification.

20. In the aforesaid situation we are of the opinion that all those teachers who have completed one year of temporary service and are continued in service even as on 31.12.1965 then they are deemed to be confirmed teachers as on 31.12.1965 by virtue of the clarificatory letters of the State Government itself and they will be entitled to the benefit of reg. 7 providing for 60 years of service.

21. Save and except the aforesaid three contentions, no new contentions are raised before us and therefore, we are of the opinion that reg. 7 as interpreted by various judgments of the Apex Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court and the further clarification as given in the present judgment, the following position of law emerges.

(1) All the teachers who are in service as on 31.12.1965 and have completed more than one year of service and are continued on 31.12.1965 are deemed to be confirmed teachers and would be entitled to the benefits of the said regulation.

(2) All the teachers who are teaching in Indian English Middle School (I.E.M.) secondary schools or Indian Middle School attached to the higher secondary school would be entitled to the benefits of the said regulation. It is further clarified that even if a teacher is teaching in Standards 5th to 7th but the said school is part of the secondary school or attached to secondary school then such teacher will be entitled to the benefits of such reg. 7.

(3) The teachers who are teaching in a middle school or school run by the Zilla Parishad or State Government will not be entitled to the benefits of reg. 7 as for the propose of benefit of reg. 7 the school must be a grant-in-aid school.

(4) The teachers who are teaching in a primary school also would not be entitled to the benefits of reg. 7.

(5) The teachers who are teaching in Indian Middle School not attached to the secondary school are also not entitled to the benefits of reg. 7.

(6) When a teacher attains age of superannuation of 60 years in the course of the academic year then his services are required to be continued till the expiry of the said academic session and is entitled to the benefits of salary and wages for the work and services undertaken by such a teacher.

22. In light of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that since all these writ petitioners are falling in the category (1) and (2) above are entitled to the benefits of reg. 7. Thus, all these writ petitions are made absolute. We accordingly make the rule in all these writ petitioners absolute and grant the benefit of reg. 7. Those writ petitioners who are not entitled to the benefits are separately decided by separate orders passed in their respective writ petitions though numbers thereof are shown in this judgment. We make the rule in the aforesaid writ petitions absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.