By the Court.—Heard Sri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner while working as lecturer in the Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology, Allahabad attained the age of superannuation of 60 years on 1st February, 2004 but was given the advantage of continuance in service, till the end of current academic session, therefore he actually retired on 30th June, 2004. Since the petitioner has been denied gratuity, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The petitioner urges that he having given the option for retirement at the age of 60 years, he is entitled for the gratuity but the respondents have denied the said benefit.

4. Learned counsel for the State, in response, submitted that the petitioner has not given his option on or before 1st July, 2003 i.e. one year before the date of retirement, therefore, he is not entitled to the aforesaid benefit of gratuity. Submission of the respondents is, that as per the Government Order dated 25th May, 2002, this option was to be given, one year before the date of retirement whereas admi