Hon’ble Dilip B Bhosale, C.J.—The following questions of law have been referred by a Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 3 August 2016, for resolution by the Full Bench:

“(a) Whether the law as laid down by the Division bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, is the correct law or not.

(b) Whether the proviso to Rule 29 of Rules, 1981, as it stands on the statute book as on date, admits of extension of service of the teacher of retirement beyond 30th June following the date of retirement or not.

(c) Whether the conscious decision of the State Government in terms of the Government order dated 9.12.2014 providing that the teachers would still retire on 30th June, following the date of retirement can be said to be bad or arbitrary in any manner so as to require issuance of a mandate to the State Government to make the amendments in proviso to Rule 29 of Rules 1981 merely because it has altered the academic session from 1st April of the year to 31st March of the succeeding year.”

2. The Division Bench, while referring the questions, found itself unable to accept the view expressed by another Division Bench of this Cou