JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.

2. None appears on behalf of B.S.A. although name of Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the B.S.A. has been shown in the cause list.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Head Clerk in the Office of Sub Deputy Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh and retired on 31.3.2006 after attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner had submitted his option to retire at the age of 60 years, therefore, he was covered under the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 which was issued accepting the recommendation of the Pay Commission revising the rates of pension/gratuity/family pension and commutation of pension in relation to teachers and employees of the Basic Education Board retiring on 01.01.2006 or thereafter. Paragraph 4(1) of the said government order provides that such teaching/non-teaching employees who retired before completing 10 years of qualifying service though not entitled to get pension like government servants, would be entitled to receive gratuity, if they retired on attaining the age of 60 years. Paragraph 4(4) of Government Order dated 16.09.2009 clarifies that teaching/non-teaching employees who retired on 1.1.2006 or thereafter would be governed by Pension Rules which were applicable before the issuance of the Government Order dated 16.9.2009. Before such Government Order dated 16.9.2009 was issued, there was Government order dated 30.7.2007 which sanctioned benefit of gratuity to those working/left out non-teaching staff of different offices of the Basic Education Board who had retired at the age of 60 years. The Government had decided to extend the benefit of gratuity to all working/left out non-teaching staff who had opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.

4. It has been argued that the petitioner's claim for gratuity was not accepted by the Finance Controller. The petitioner, aggrieved thereby, filed petition bearing Writ-A No. 69236 of 2013 (Kedar Ram Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2013 with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation by a speaking order. The Finance Controller, Basic Education Board had earlier given certain directions to the Finance and Accounts Officer but then decided the case of the petitioner himself. It has been mentioned in the order dated 17.2.2014, challenged in this petition, that the petitioner had retired as Head Clerk on 31.3.2006 and pension for the said post was to be approved by the Assistant Basic Education, Director, but since the representation had been made to the Finance Controller a direction was issued by the High Court to the Finance Controller for taking decision on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner was heard personally on 27.1.2014, and he had based his claim upon Government Order No. 1754/79-5-09-02/2009 of Shiksha Anubhag-5 dated 16.9.2009. The Finance Controller in his order stated that such order dated 16.9.2009 is not a Government Order. It is a Circular/ Office Order issued by the Shiksha Anubhag-5 for revision of rates of pension/gratuity/family pension and commutation of pension.

5. The case of the petitioner is governed by Government Order dated 30.7.2007 which refers to the remaining/left out employees of the Board and who had retired at the age of 60 years and extended the benefit of pension/gratuity to them but such Government Order become applicable only with effect from 30.07.2007 and the petitioner had retired on 31.03.2006 much before issuance of the Government Order dated 30.7.2007, as a result of which, gratuity is not payable to the petitioner. The Office Order/Circular dated 16.9.2009 did not create any substantive rights in favour of the employees for getting gratuity. It only revised the rates of pension/ family pension/ commutation/ gratuity etc.

6. It is the case of the Respondents that an employe