This writ petition has been instituted by three teachers of the 4th respondent - school questioning the legality and validity of the orders issued by the 1st respondent - Commissioner and Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on 7.12.1998 directing the 2nd respondent - District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam to stop payment of pension to them. They also called in question the consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent - District Educational Officer directing the 3rd respondent -District Treasury Officer, Visakhapatnam on 22.12.1998 to stop releasing pension with immediate effect to them.

2. The 1st petitioner worked and retired as a Head Master of the 4th respondent - High School run and managed by the Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam. The other petitioners have also worked as teachers in the said school and have retired from service. Prior to introduction of Pension Rules with effect from 1.4.1979, the Dock Labour Board was according the benefit of "Contributory Provident Fund" to its employees. Upon introduction of the pension scheme by it with effect from 1.4.1979, it gave option to all the employees who entered service of the Dock Labour Board prior to 1.4.1979 to exercise options either to remain in the contributory provident fund scheme or to move over to the new pension scheme, and in the latter event, the contributions made by the management to the provident fund would be retrieved by them. The writ petitioners have exercised option along with other teaching and non-teaching staff of the school to remain in the contributory provident fund scheme instead of switching over to the pension scheme. The 1st petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.1991, followed similarly by the other petitioners. The 4th respondent - school was admitted to grant-in-aid scheme by the State Government. Subsequently, the State Government also introduced 'pension scheme' to' the teaching and non-teaching staff who rendered service against grant-in-aid posts. Thus, the writ petitioners started receiving pension paid by the State Government.

3. The Dock Labour Board passed Resolution No. 77/1984 withdrawing the contributory provident fund scheme. In the company of 23 others, the writ petitioners herein have filed WP No.65 of 1985 questioning the validity and legality of the said Resolution No. 77/1984 passed by the Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition on 19.9.1989. Dock Labour Board carried the matter in appeal preferring WA No.316 of 1990 there against. The Division Bench dismissed the said writ appeal on 21.11.1992. Hence the Contributory Provident Fund benefits were paid. The impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner and Director of School Education, upon a misconception that the writ petitioners, who are in receipt of contributory provident fund by the Dock Labour Board are not entitled to receive pensionary benefits and hence directed the District Educational Officer to stop payment of pension. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

4. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, the District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam filed counter-affidavit in the matter and contested this case. It is contended that the writ petitioners are not entitled to derive two sets of retirement benefits, one by way of contributory provident fund paid by the Dock Labour Board and another by way of pension paid by the State Government. Whereas all retired persons are entitled to either the contributory provident fund benefit or the pension, but not both. Therefore, the action of the Commissioner of School Education in ordering for stoppage of payment of pension is justified.

5. The 4th respondent in its counter-affidavit has admitted the fact that the writ petitioners have exercised their option to continue under the contributory provident fund scheme and accordingly they were paid the contributory