IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 47 of 2010 Jagpal Singh …..…….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ....……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Present: Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Date of Decision: 31.03.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) In 1972 the petitioner was inducted into the service of the respondents against the post of Principal in a Junior High School. The school under reference was then upgraded as a High School. Even after its up-gradation, the petitioner was required to discharge the duties of the post of Principal on an ad-hoc basis. Subsequently he was regularized as a Principal in the High School as well. 2. The school in question was then upgraded as an Intermediate College. Even after the up-gradation, the petitioner continued to discharge duties as Principal at the same college. In 1997, recognizing the meritorious services rendered by the petitioner, he was awarded the National Award of Teachers. 3. Based on a Government Order dated 29.08.2005, the claim of the petitioner for two years’ extension in service was considered. On account of the fact that he had been awarded the National Award of Teachers, the petitioner was allowed two years’ extension in service beyond the age of retirement, based on the aforesaid Government Order dated 29.08.2005. 2 4. The Government Order dated 29.08.2005 authorizes only extension in service, as a reward for those who have been adjudged as of outstanding merit, having been awarded the National Award of Teachers. The extended service under reference is not required to be taken into consideration for determining pensionary or other retiral benefits. The claim of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is, that in addition to the concession of two years’ extension in service, the petitioner is also entitled to compute two years of his service towards pension and other retiral benefits. 5. We have considered the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Government Order dated 29.08.2005 is only a concession in recognition of meritorious service. The government may not have extended any concession, whatsoever and no one could have claimed the same as of right. But then, through the aforesaid Government Order dated 29.08.2005 it was decided to extend a concession of extension of two years’ service. Likewise, it is open to the State Government, even now to reconsider, on the basis of similar concessions granted by other States (including the successor State of Uttar Pradesh) to compute the additional two years’ service towards pension and other retiral benefits, but the same can not be claimed by the petitioner as of right. 6. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. We, however, leave it open to the State Government to consider the issue at its own level, and pass appropriate order on the matter, if it is so advised.. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 31.03.2010 P. Singh