IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 336 OF 2004 Kirat Pal Singh ………………….Petitioner. Versus Director of Intermediate Education and others. ………Respondents. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The short question for adjudication before this Court in the present Writ Petition is, as to whether an employee during the period of his suspension can exercise his option for the extended retirement age which is 60 years (instead of 58 years as it was earlier). The petitioner was a Principal in Rashtriya Inter College, Bhalswagaz, Haridwar. He was suspended pending inquiry by the Management Committee vide order dated 3.7.2002. Prior to it a Government Order was passed in the erstwhile State of U.P. in the year 1999 (Annexure -9 to the writ petition), whereby the teachers of grant-in-aid private schools were also given the benefit of exercising their option for opting for the retirement age of 60 years, within one years before the date of superannuation, but not later than 1st July of that year. There is no doubt about the validity of this G.O. dated 17.2.1999, as also, its applicability in the grant-in-aid schools, including the school in which the petitioner was working at the relevant time. The services of the petitioners were suspended vide order dated 3.7.2002. A series of litigations in this Court went on, which are not relevant for our purpose. What is relevant is that an order was passed superannuating the petitioner with effect from 30.6.2004. The case of the petitioner is that in compliance with the Government Order dated 17.2.1999, referred above, he had exercised option on 21.5.2003 for opting for the retirement age of 60 years and therefore, the case of the petitioner is that once he had exercised his option, his services were to continue till 30.6.2006 and he has wrongly been superannuated from service, two years earlier. The reason assigned by the State Authorities in their Counter Affidavit is that the option of the petitioner was not forwarded by the Management Committee and therefore, it could not be considered by the State Authorities and there was no anomaly on the part of the State in treating the retirement of the petitioner on 30.6.2004. The Management Committee on its part has stated in its counter affidavit that it was during the period of suspension that the petitioner had exercised his option for extension of his services, therefore, the Management Committee did not find it proper to forward the papers of the petitioner and in fact Management Committee came to the conclusion that he should not get the benefit of the G.O. dated 17.2.1999. 2. The Government Order dated 17.2.1999 has been perused. The order nowhere authorises the Management Committee to withhold the option of an employee, once it is so exercised. In fact, there is no role of Management Committee in the order dated 17.2.1999. The matter is absolutely between the teacher and the State. Therefore, withholding of the papers of the petitioner by the Management Committee is on the face of it unjustified. 3. Moreover, the logic assigned by the Management Committee for withholding the papers of the petitioner, that at the relevant time the petitioner was undergoing suspension, is not legally sustainable. 4. It is a settled position of law that a person under suspension does not cease to hold his office, he only ceases to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of his office, for the time being. In other words, his powers, functions and other benefits only remain in abeyance, but they do not altogether cease. Such a person still has a lien on the post. Therefore, although the petitioner was admittedly under suspension, during the relevant time he still had a lien on the post on which he was working and therefore, the Management Committee was wrong in withholding the papers and not forwarding it to the Education Authorities. This action on the part of the Management Committee is wholly unjustified and illegal. 5. We have been informed at the bar that even if the services of the petitioner would have been extended for two years, he would have retired on 30.6.2006. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was not working as a Principal or as a Teacher between 30.6.2004 and 30.6.2006. 6. We therefore allow this writ petition with the following directions: 7. Short of paying the salary to the petitioner, during this period i.e. from 1.4.2004 to 30.6.2006, the petitioner will be treated to be in service and will be treated to have been retired on 30.6.2006, which in the normal course, he would have, had the papers of the petitioner not been wrongly withheld by the Management Committee. The pension and other post retirement benefits of the petitioner shall be calculated accordingly treating the petitioner to have retired on 30.6.2006. 8. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 7.6.2010 Rathour