Uttarakhand High Court
Shambhu Dayal Shah vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3606-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J
SPECIAL APPEAL No.451 of 2021
Shambhu Dayal Shah ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel.
Counsel for State/1 to 6 Mr. D.S. Bora, learned Standing
Counsel.
JUDGMENT:
(PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J)
Appellant who served as teacher in a
Government School, was conferred "Shailesh Matiyani State
Education Award" after attaining age of superannuation. He
claimed benefit of 2 years' extension in service based on
such award. His claim was rejected by Director General,
School Education, vide order dated 21.01.2021. He
challenged rejection of his claim in Writ Petition (M/S) No.
754 of 2021. The writ petition was dismissed by learned
Single Judge by holding that such benefit is not available to
a teacher, who is reappointed for the benefit of students till
the end of academic session, as he is not continuing in
service. Relevant discussion has been made in para 9 and
10 of the impugned judgment, which are reproduced
below:-
9. The identical view, which has been expressed by the
Additional Director, almost on the basis of the same ground,
as that given by the Director, Secondary School Education, is
not faulted in any manner whatsoever. Hence, this Court is
also of the view, that once after the attainment of the age of
superannuation, if the petitioner is surviving into the services
due to the reappointment granted to him to work upto the end
of the academic session, it would be deemed that he was in
service as a consequence of the executive and administrative
arrangement, to meet the wider objective of the academic
benefit to the students, and it was not an individual right or
benefit, which has been created in favour of the petitioner, by
2025:UHC:3606-DB
the grant of extension of service, hence there cannot be
double extension on the basis of award, and hence the
extended period of services for the purposes of extension to be
granted under the Government Order dated 22.08.2007,
would be barred by paragraph No.2, of the said Government
Order, and the award being granted after the attainment of
the age of superannuation, cannot be treated as to be an
award, which was granted when the petitioner was in service
in order to provide him an extension of services under the
award granted in his favour. Hence, the ratio laid down by the
coordinate Bench of this Court, would not be applicable in the
circumstances of the present case, and coupled with the fact
that the said judgment on being challenged before the Division
Bench, has been kept in abeyance. Meaning thereby, it is the
said judgment of the coordinate Bench, is in a suspended
animation, and is not holding good as on date in the eyes of
law as on the date when the writ petition has been argued.
10. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view, that the
impugned orders of rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the
extension of the services on the pretext that he was a State
awardee, and hence his services should be extended, would
not be available to him, because the extension as per the
opinion of this Court, is only available to those employees who
are the recipient of the award during the subsistence of the
principal period of services, and not when they are the
recipient of the award, under an extended period of
reappointment made by the Education Department, in
pursuance to the Government Order giving the benefit of the
end of the academic session. Hence, the writ petition lacks
merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
view taken by learned Single Judge is based on misreading
of Government Order dated 22.08.2007 and as per said
G.O., appellant was entitled to 2 years extension in service
on account of the award. The Government Order dated
22.08.2007 is extracted below for ready reference:-
"la[;k&320@XXIV-2/2007
izs'kd]
jktsUnz flag]
mi lfpo]
mRrjk[k.M 'kkluA
lsok esa]
funs'kd]
fo|ky;h f'k{kk] mRrjk[k.M]
nsgjknwuA
2025:UHC:3606-DB
ek/;fed% f'k{kk vuqHkkx&2 nsgjknwu 22 vxLr] 2007
fo'k;% jk'Vªh; @ jkT; iqjLdkj izkIr csfld @ ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds
v/;kidks dks mudh vf/ko'kZrk vk;q ds i'pkr~ 2 o'kZ dh vfrfjDr
lsok dk ykHkA
egksn;]
उपयुर्� िवषयक शासनादेश संख्या 885/XXIV-2/2005 �दनांक 29-
08-2005 का संदभर् �हण करने का क� कर�, जो रा�ीय / राज्य पुरस्कार
�ा� बेिसक / माध्यिमक िव�ालय� के अध्यापको को उनक� अिधवषर्ता आयु
के प�ात 02 वषर् क� अित�र� सेवा का लाभ �दये जाने से संबंिधत है।
2- उ� संबंध म� कितi; �ु�टपणर् �स्ताव �ा� होने एवं तद्�म म�
सम्यक िवचारोपरान्त िलये गये िनणर्य के अनुसार मुझे यह कहने का िनदेश
�आ है �क उ� �स्तर-1 म� व�णत रा�ीय / राज्य पुरस्कार �ा� अध्यापको क�
02 वषर् क� अित�र� सेवा का लाभ उन्ही अध्यापको को अनुमन्य होगा िजन्हे
सेवा म� रहते �ए ही पुरस्कार �ा� हो गया हो। सेवािनवृि� / स�ांत लाभ के
प�ात् पुरस्कार �ा� करने वाले अध्यापक को 02 वषर् क� अित�र� सेवा का
लाभ अनुमन्य नह� होगा।
3- शासनादेश संख्या 885/XXIV-2/2005 �दनांक 29-08-2005 क�
शेष सभी शत� यथावत रह�गी।
4- यह आदेश िव� िवभाग के परामशर् के आधार पर िनगर्त �कया जा
रह� है।
Hkonh;
g0v0
¼jktsUnz flag½
milfpo**
5. The aforesaid Government Order refers to
Government Order dated 29.08.2005 issued earlier, which
is on record as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. The
Government Order dated 29.08.2005 provides that a
teacher who has been conferred a National/State Award
would be entitled to extension in service upto 2 years,
provided he is physically and mentally fit and his work and
conduct has been found to be satisfactory.
2025:UHC:3606-DB
6. Since Government Order dated 29.08.2005 was
silent on the question whether benefit of extension in
service would be available to such teachers also who were
conferred award after attaining age of superannuation and
questions on this aspect were being raised by the
departmental authorities, therefore, State Government
issued government order dated 22.08.2007, which is
clarificatory in nature. Paragraph 2 of the said Government
unequivocally provides that benefit of extension of 2 years
service would be available only to such teachers who were
conferred a National/State award while they were
continuing in service and such benefit would not be
available to a teacher who was conferred such award after
his retirement.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the
last sentence of para 2 of Government Order dated
22.08.2007, for contending that benefit of extension in
service is also available to a teacher who is continuing on
extension till end of academic session. The last sentence,
on which heavy reliance is placed on behalf of the appellant
is extracted below:-
"सेवािनवृि� / स�ांत लाभ के प�ात् पुरस्कार �ा� करने वाले अध्यापक को
02 वषर् क� अित�र� सेवा का लाभ अनुमन्य नह� होगा।"
8. The last sentence cannot be read in isolation and
it has to be read with earlier sentence of para 2 of
government order dated 22.08.2007. The earlier sentence
of para 2 leaves no room for doubt that benefit of extension
in service would be available only to such teachers who
received State/National award while they were continuing
in service.
2025:UHC:3606-DB
9. The expression "continuing in service" used in
para 2 would mean that a teacher who receives an award
after completing age of superannuation, will not be entitled
to extension in service for 2 years. The last sentence, on
which reliance is placed by appellant's counsel, has been
added to emphasize the Government Policy that teacher
receiving award after retirement will not be entitled for
extension in service.
10. The expression "सेवािनवृि� / स�ांत लाभ के प�ात् पुरस्कार"
used in last sentence thus would mean that a teacher, if
receives an award post retirement would not be entitled to
further extension in service even if he received the award
after being reappointed for the benefit of students till the
end of session, which is also referred as extension till end
of academic session.
11. The teachers serving in Government
Schools/Colleges are State employees. Their age of
superannuation is fixed by statutory provision contained in
Rule 56 of Financial Handbook (Vol. II, Para II to IV),
which reads as under:-
["56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every
Government servant shall retire from service on the
afternoon of the last day of the month in which he
attains the age of sixty years:
Provided that a Government servant, whose date of birth
is the first day of a month, shall retire from service on
the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on
attaining the age of sixty years:
Provided further that a Government servant, who has
attained the age of fifty-eight years on or before the first
day of the November, 2001 and is on extension in
2025:UHC:3606-DB
service, shall retire from service on expiry of his
extended period of service.
(a-1) No Government servant shall be granted extension
in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years:
Provided that a Government servant dealing with budget
work or working as a full time member of a committee
which is to be wound up within a short period of time
may be granted, by the Government, extension of
service for a period not exceeding three months in public
interest:
Provided further that a Government servant holding
highly specialised technical job whose replacement has
not been possible to be arranged before his retirement
even after efforts made in this regard, may be granted
extension of service up to the age of sixty-2 years, if
such extension is unavoidable in public interest and the
grounds for such extension are recorded in writing:
Note-Each case for extension of service under this clause
shall be put up for orders to the Chief Minister through
the Chief Secretary.
(a-2) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary
contained in clause (a) or clause (a-1) of this rule, a
Government servant may, if considered necessary, in
public interest, so to do, be granted extension of service
up to the age of sixty-2 years with the prior approval of
the Cabinet:
Provided that in the cases of extension in service under
clauses (a-1) and (a-2) of this rule, Government shall
have the right to terminate the extension of service
before expiry of such extension by giving a notice in
writing of not less than three months in the case of a
permanent or, of one month in the case of a temporary
Government servant, or pay and allowances in lieu of
such notice."
12. Retirement of a teacher during mid academic
session adversely affects his students, therefore, State
Government framed a policy of permitting a teacher
retiring during mid academic session to serve till the end
of academic session, wherever necessary; however, in that
case, the concerned teacher is treated to be re-employed
and the service, rendered during such re-employment,
2025:UHC:3606-DB
does not entitle him to any additional benefit except
salary, therefore, the contention that a teacher, who is re-
employed after attaining age of superannuation should
also be treated as continuing in service, for claiming
benefit of Policy contained in Government Order dated
22.08.2007, cannot be accepted.
12 We thus concur with the view taken by learned
Single Judge that in view of stipulation made in
Government Order dated 22.08.2007, benefit of 2 years
extension in service would not be available to a teacher
who received National/State award after attaining age of
superannuation, and continuance of such teacher on a
teaching post on reemployment, till end of academic
session, will make no difference.
13. We, therefore, find no merit in this Intra Court
Appeal. Accordingly, Special Appeal is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J.
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt:07th May, 2025
NR/
