IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 381 of 2011 Yashpal Singh Shastri S/o late Ishak Lal Presently working as officiating Principal, Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidhyalaya Inter College Gurukul Narsan, Hardwar, District Hardwar. ….…… Petitioner Versus 1. Director, School Education, Tapovan Nanoor Khera, Dehradun. 2. District Education Officer, District Hardwar. 3. Committee of Management, Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Viddyalaya Inter College Gurukul Narsan, Hardwar, District Hardwar. ………. Respondents Present: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent Nos.1 & 2. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 26th December, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) In the month of April 2011, petitioner reached the age of superannuation. Prior thereto, on 20th September, 2010 and 12th April, 2011, petitioner made a representation to retain him in service until the end of the academic year closing on 31st March, 2012. These representations were not considered on or before 30th April, 2011 when the petitioner superannuated. Petitioner, accordingly, filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by directing the said representations to be decided. Accordingly, the said representations have been decided when it has been held out that in view of the Government Order dated 8th April, 2011, retention of the petitioner beyond the age of superannuation is depended on the sanction of the Government, as provided in Clause 2 (a) of Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules and the same being absent, petitioner’s request for retaining him after his superannuation is not entertainable. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. In that, amongst others, it has been contended that though in the order of the Government dated 8th April, 2011 it was mentioned that this extension will be effective from the date the sanction of the Government is received but on 20th September, 2011 by yet another Government Order the same was dispensed with and contrary thereto it was held out that the sanction of the Government under Clause (a) of Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules will come in due course. It was contended that in such circumstances, petitioner became entitled to be retained atleast upto 31st March, 2012. 2. According to us, the orders dated 8th April, 2011 and 20th September, 2011 are not Government Orders. They are mere executive instructions. They have been issued for the purpose of guiding, as to what steps are required to be taken and when, in the matter of seeking Government sanction to retain a superannuated employee. The said executive instructions dated 8th April, 2011 and 20th September, 2011 made it amply clear when a request to that effect should be made, how the same should be made and how such a request shall be processed. While in the instruction dated 8th April, 2011, it was mentioned that the request for retention will be effective on receipt of Government sanction, in the instruction dated 20th September, 2011 it was clarified that the Government sanction will come in due course of time. The fact, however, remains that in terms of Clause (a) of Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, essential for retention is the sanction of the Government on public ground. Right from the day one, petitioner was seeking sanction of the Government on public grounds. The order dated 13th May, 2011, impugned in the writ petition, speaks of non-availability of sanction of the Government. The said order is not an order of the Government. The same is a decision rendered by 3 Director, School Education, Uttarakhand. As yet, the Government has not taken any decision either to retain or not to retain the petitioner. On 2nd May, 2011, the Court directed the representations of the petitioner to be decided. Those representations were for extension of service of the petitioner. Such extension could only be accorded by the Government. As yet, the Government has not taken any decision. We, accordingly, request the Government to decide. 3. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 26.12.2011 26.12.2011 P. Singh