The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the rule of harmonious construction in interpreting conflicting provisions of the Government Order and determining the entitlement of the petitioner to the benefit of extension of service.

JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs :

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned communication/order dated 27th May, 2020 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of extension of two years of service granted to the State Awardee has been rejected.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of extension of two years of service to the petitioner being the State Awardee of Shailesh Matiyani State Education Award-2017 from 1st April 2020."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was holding the charge of Principal in Inter College, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. He retired from services on 30.04.2019 after attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, in terms of the provisions of the Government Order dated 08.04.2011, 20.09.2011 and 01.06.2012, the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar granted approval for extension of the services of the petitioner for the period 01.05.2019 to 31.03.2020. Since, the petitioner was attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2019 during the academic session 2019-2020, therefore, in terms of the Govt. orders providing for the extension of service to the Teacher/Principals engaged in teaching work, the petitioner was granted the extension of service vide order dated 30.03.2019. Thereafter, on 13.05.2019, the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar has passed an order on 13.05.2019, whereby the concerned authority/Incharge Officer was directed to grant the charge of the post of Principal to the petitioner. It is contended that while the petitioner was working as Lecturer (Hindi)/Officiating Principal, he was conferred with the Sailesh Matiyani State Education Award 2017 for his outstanding work and the said award has given to him in the year 2019 during his extension period and after extension of said period of one year he has been retired on 31.03.2020. It is further contended that as per Rules, the teacher who has been awarded by Sailesh Matiyani State Education Award is entitled for the benefit of two years extension in service. In this regard, petitioner moved an application to the Secretary Education, Government of Uttarakhand for extension of service in view of the fact that he has been conferred with the said award but no decision was taken thereon and on 31.03.2020, petitioner retired from service. On 27.05.2020, Director, Secondary Education Government of Uttarakhand issued a communication to the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar and after referring to the communication issued by the Director General, Education dated 18.05.2020, it was informed that in view of provisions of paragraph-2 of the Government order dated 22.08.2007, it is not possible to grant extension of two years of service on the ground that the petitioner has been awarded the State Award. Feeling aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 stating therein that the petitioner's superannuation date was 30.04.2019 and after getting extension of service from Chief Education Officer finally he has been retired on 31.03.2020. It is also stated that according to G.O. dated 22.08.2007 extension of two years service due to National/State award is permissible only to those teachers who have received the award during their service. It is also stated that the benefit of two years extension is not permissible to those who have received the award after their superannuation/retirement and as the petitioner received the award after his superannuation/retirement, thus the extension of two years service is not permissible to the petitioner.

5. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of