By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. With the consent of counsel for the parties the two special appeals are being finally heard at the admission stage.

3. Special Appeal No. 264 of 2013 (State of U.P. and others v. Bhashthi Dutt Shastri and others) challenges the judgment and order dated 15.5.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the Government Order dated 4.2.2004 to the extent it grants benefit to the teachers working in Non Government aided institutions and has issued direction to treat the petitioners (present private respondents) at par with the teachers working in the Government institutions in respect of payment of death cum retirement gratuity and other post retiral benefits to which the teachers of Government institutions are entitled w.e.f. 28.11.2001.

4. Special Appeal No. 739 of 2016 (State of U.P. and others v. Narayan Singh Senger and others) challenges the order dated 14.1.2016 passed in Writ-A No. 27662 of 2014 whereby the learned Single Judge relying on the judgment passed in writ petition giving rise to Special Appeal No. 264 of 2013 has allowed the writ petition in terms of the said judgment aforesaid.

5. The question for consideration before us in both these appeals is whether the teachers working in Non Government aided institutions (who retired prior to 1.7.2003) should be treated at par with the teachers serving in the Government institutions and can be said to form a homogenous class for the purpose of considering the grant of post retiral benefits, such as pension and gratuity etc.

6. As per the admitted facts all the petitioners (present private respondents) were retired as teachers from privately managed and aided Intermediate colleges after attaining the age of 60 years. The State Government vide Government Order dated 31.3.1978 had sanctioned pension to those teachers at the same rate and subject to the conditions admissible to the teachers of Government colleges. vide Government Order dated 10.8.1978 the State Government had sanctioned the benefit of death cum retirement gratuity to the teachers of privately managed institutions retiring at the age of 58 years and in this regard rules were notified on 29.8.1989 for sanction of death cum retirement gratuity to the teachers of privately managed institutions retiring at the age of 58 years.

7. As per the said scheme, all those teachers who gave their option for retirement at the age of 58 years were entitled to get pension as well as gratuity whereas such teachers who gave option to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years were entitled to pension only.

8. It is to be noted that the petitioners/respondents on the basis of option exercised by them had continued to work till the age of 60 years and thereby were not given gratuity.

9. Under the Government Order/notification dated 28.11.2001 the age of retirement of Government servants in Government institutions was increased from 58 to 60 years. Consequently, the Government Order dated 20.6.2002 was issued by the State Government to the effect that all service benefits i.e. payable to the Government servants at the age of 58 years will be payable at the age of 60 years w.e.f. 28.11.2001. The consequence of this order was that pension and death cum retirement gratuity become payable to the teachers working in Government institutions who were to retire at the age of 60 years.

10. The State Government vide Government Order dated 4.2.2004 extended the benefit of enhancement of age to the teachers working in Non Government institutions and the age of retirement was enhanced from 60 to 62 years. The teachers working in Non Government aided institutions were required to give their option to retire at the age of 60 years and avail the benefit of pension-cum-gratuity. This Government Order was made applicable w.e.f. 1.7.2003.

11. The petitioners (present private respondents) challenge