Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—The respondents, who are the original petitioners in writ proceedings instituted before the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution, are working as Assistant Teachers or, as the case may be, Head Masters of primary institutions conducted and managed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board at Allahabad. The institutions are recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (Act). The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 (Rules) framed under the Act, are applicable to teachers of primacy schools. Rule 29 provides as follows:

“29. Age of superannuation.—Every teacher shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 62 years:

Provided that a teacher who retires during an academic session (July 1 to June 30) shall continue to work till the end of the academic session, that is, June 30 and such period of service will be deemed as extended period of employment.”

2. For convenience of reference, we are referring to the parties by their description in the original writ petition. The dates of birth of the four petitioners are respectively 1 June 1953, 27 May 1953, 4 June 1953 and 30 June 1953. Consequently, the dates of retirement of the four teachers on attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years were 1 June 2015, 27 May 2015, 4 June 2015 and 30 June 2015. Until 2013-14, the academic session of primary schools and junior high schools conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board commenced on 1 July and would end on 30 June of the succeeding year. Under Rule 29, a teacher is liable to retire on the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 62 years. Consequently, the four teachers in question would have continued in the normal course until the last day of the respective months in which they attained the age of 62 years. However, the proviso to Rule 29 postulates that a teacher who retires during an academic session would continue to work till the end of the academic session. Since the academic session was between 1 July to 30 June, a teacher who attained the age of superannuation within that period would continue until the following 30 June and such period of service would be deemed to be an extended period of employment.

3. On 9 December 2014, a Government Order was issued by which it was resolved that with effect from academic year 2015-16, the academic session would commence from 1 April and would end on 31 March following year. The Government Order stipulated that the benefit of this would be available for the purposes of admission, promotion of students and for conducting the institutions. However, it was contemplated that this would not affect any change in the grant of ‘sessional benefits’ to teachers who, in consequence, would be granted the same benefit as before. The State Government issued another Government Order on 29 June 2015 clarifying certain directions which had been issued in the meantime on 15 June 2015 and 19 June 2015.

4. The teachers in the present case filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 3653 (S/S) of 2015) in order to challenge a decision which was taken by the Secretary, Basic Education on 15 June 2015, relying upon the terms of the Government Order. The view of the Secretary, Basic Education was that the teachers in question would not be entitled to the sessional benefit beyond 30 June 2015. The learned Single Judge, by an interim order dated 30 June 2015 held that since the dates of superannuation of the petitioners were respectively on 1 June 2015, 27 May 2015, 4 June 2015 and 30 June 2015, which fell in the midst of the academic session that had commenced on 1 April 2015 and was to end on 31 March 2016, the petitioners would be allowed to continue till the end of the academic session, i.e. until 31 March 2016 subject to the verification of their dates of birth. The learned Single Judge noted that the petitioners in t