Gujarat High Court
Raval Pravinchandra Maganlal vs Commissioner Of Higher Education on 18 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8273/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8273 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7775 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5015 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAVAL PRAVINCHANDRA MAGANLAL
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GIRISH K PATEL(2770) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the impugned orders passed by the learned Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal (College Section) (`the Tribunal' for short), to the extent of not granting the benefit to the petitioners to retire at the age of 60 years.
2. As common question of facts and law are involved Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:52:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8273/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined in these petitions, with the consent of learned advocates for the parties and by way of the previous orders to tag these matters together, these matters are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The facts in nutshell are such that the petitioners were appointed as peons Class-IV prior to 1.10.1984; thereafter they were given promotion to Class-III. She submitted that the retirement age to the employees appointed before 1.10.1984 was 60 years and the action of the respondent no.1 directing the Principals of all the colleges in the State of Gujarat that those employees who were given promotion from Class-IV to Class-III cadre, their age of superannuation will be 58 years and therefore the petitioners were ordered to retire before completion of 60 years. As the petitioners were not paid the retiral dues and payment of recovery was ordered for the period for which they have served excess than 58 years, the petitioners approached the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal (College Section), wherein the learned Tribunal partly allowed the applications directing the respondents not to demand recovery of amount of salary received by the petitioner for the period of which he has actually served and to process the pension papers of the petitioners expeditiously. Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:52:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8273/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 4.1 Learned advocate Ms.Vyas for the petitioners submitted that at the time of passing the impugned orders, the learned Tribunal has not properly considered the Ordinance of the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University and therefore erred in not granting the prayer of the petitioners to allow them to retire at the age of 60 years; that the the Ordinance provides that the date of superannuation of the non-teaching staff of affiliated colleges who have been appointed on and from 1.10.1984 is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years, except in case of Class-IV where it will be 60 years, provided that the date of superannuation of non-teaching staff of affiliated colleges who have been appointed before 1.10.1984 shall be the date on which they attain the age of 60 years....therefore, when the petitioners are already appointed before 1.10.1984, they are required to be continued upto the age of 60 years; that the letter dated 31.5.2013 by which the respondent no.1 directed the Principals of all the colleges in the State of Gujarat that those employees who were given promotion from Class-IV to Class-III, their age of superannuation will be 58 years was cancelled vide letter of the Government dated 21.10.2015 and thereby also the action of the respondents retiring the petitioners prematurely is erroneous and required be set aside Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:52:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8273/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined and the learned Tribunal has also erred in not granting the prayer of retiring the petitioners at the age of 60 years. She, therefore, prayed to allow these petitions.
5. Per contra, learned AGP for the respondent-state has submitted that the petitioners were appointed in Class-IV before 1.10.1984, thereafter, they were promoted to Class-III. For the Class-IV employees, the retirement age is 60 years and for those of Class-IV, the superannuation age is 58 years. She submitted, by referring to the Government Circular dated 22.1.2003, that w.e.f. 1.4.1984 all the employees of non-teaching staff, except Class-IV employees, superannuation age will be 58 years and that when the petitioners were promoted to Class-III after 1.4.1984, their age of superannuation will be 58 years. With regard to the University Ordinance relied on by learned advocate for the petitioners, she submitted that the policy decision of the government would prevail over the Ordinance. She submitted further that the letter dated 31.5.2013 is cancelled by letter dated 21.10.2015 of the Government and there is a mention there that the policy of the government which is prevalent from time to time should be followed. She further submitted that though the initial appointment of the petitioners was before 1.10.1984, they were promoted to Class-III after 1.10.1984, which means that all the rules and regulations Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:52:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8273/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined applicable to Class-III employees after 1.10.1984 were applicable to the petitioners also. She, therefore, submitted that learned Tribunal has not committed any error in not granting the benefit of retirement of 60 years to the petitioners.
5.1 In support of her submissions, learned AGP has relied on the following decisions:
(1) State of Punjab V/s Ram Lubhaya Bagga reported in 1998 Law Suit(SC) 251.
(2) Directorate of Film Festivals V/s Gaurav Ashwin Jain reported in 2007 Law Suit (SC) 429.
(3) The Reserve Bank of India V/s M.T.Mani and Another decided on 23.5.2025 in Civil Appeal No.13962 of 2024.
6. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and also perused the material on record.
6.1 The only point to be decided by this Court is whether the respondents were justified in retiring the petitioners before the age of 60 years and whether the Tribunal is right in approving the said action in not granting the said prayer in the applications filed before it? Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:52:15 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8273/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined 6.2 The pension scheme dated 3.7.1987 states that "the age of superannuation retirement for the existing staff covered under the scheme shall be 60(sixty) years. The age of superannuation retirement for the staff that may be received on and from 1.10.1984 shall be 58 years for which universities should be requested to take necessary action to amend the relevant statues/Rules Regulations accordingly. 6.3 The Government Circular, Education Department dated 22.1.2003 reveals that w.e.f.1.4.1984 all the employees of non teaching staff, except class IV employees, superannuation age will be 58 years. The petitioners obviously will not remain in Class-IV when once given promotion to Class-III. As soon as they took charge as Class- III, their cadre would be changed and service rules and conditions applicable to Class III would be applicable to the appellant as they no more remained on the post of Class-IV employee and therefore, it is clear that their superannuation age is 58 years and not 60 years.
6.4 As regards the Ordinance of the University relied on by learned advocate for the petitioners, it mentions that "the date of superannuation of the non-teaching staff of affiliated colleges who have been appointed on and from 1.10.1984 is the date on which he attains the age of 58 Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:52:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8273/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined years, except in case of Class IV where it will be 60 years. It clearly divides employees i.e. non teaching staff into two classes. First group of employees who are recruited before 1.10.1984, whose superannuation age will be 60 years; second group of employees who are recruited and appointed on or after the date 1.10.1984, their superannuation age is 58 years. Again, second group is further divided into two groups, first group of employees of non-teaching staff of Class III and above i.e. Class I, II and III, whose superannuation age is 58 years, while second group of employees of non teaching staff, who are belonged to Class IV employees and recruited and appointed on or after 1.10.1984, their superannuation age is prescribed 60 years as in the case of employees recruited on or before 1.10.1984.
6.5 In the present case, the petitioners were appointed before 1.10.1984 i.e. they fall in the first group; thereafter they were given promotion after 1.10.1984 i.e. they fall in the second group and further they fall in the first group of the second group as they have been converted into Class-III due to promotion and therefore their superannuation age would be 58 years. The endeavour of the petitioners to take the benefits of Class-III and also to take the benefit of retirement of Class-IV simultaneously cannot stand. Therefore, there is no error committed by the respondents and the Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:52:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8273/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/07/2025 undefined learned Tribunal in retiring the petitioners at the age of 58 years.
6.6 In view of the above, no relief can be granted in these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 21:52:15 IST 2025