V.P.Mittal vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 965 Guj

      C/SCA/14748/2005                              JUDGMENT




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14748 of 2005


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

======================================

1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
    allowed to see the judgment ?

2   To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3   Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair
    copy of the judgment ?

4   Whether this case involves a substantial
    question of law as to the interpretation of the
    Constitution of India or any order made
    thereunder ?

======================================
                        V.P.MITTAL
                           Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
======================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT(100) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.4
MR GM JOSHI(370) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.2,1.3,1.4.1,1.4.2
VYOM H SHAH(9387) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MR BHARAT VYAS, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DG CHAUHAN(218) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

                         Date : 21/01/2021

                         ORAL JUDGMENT

          C/SCA/14748/2005                                           JUDGMENT




[1.0]          The petitioner by way of this petition prays to count

the services of the petitioner from 04.01.1961 to 07.10.1976 rendered by him with College of Agriculture, Udaipur and Rajasthan Agricultural University, Udaipur and revise the pension accordingly and pay the arrears with 10% interest. The petitioner was serving as Professor with the erstwhile Gujarat Agricultural University, Junagadh, which is now divided into four Universities from 01.05.2004, and therefore, the respondent - Junagadh Agricultural University is the present University concerned in the matter. The petitioner is superannuated at the age of 60 years on 28.02.1994. Prior to joining of the service with Agricultural University in Gujarat, the petitioner was serving as Assistant Professor from 04.01.1961 to 31.12.1963 in College of Agriculture, Udaipur and from 01.01.1964 to 07.10.1976 as Assistant Professor in Rajasthan Agricultural University, Udaipur. Thus, the petitioner served from 04.01.1961 to 07.10.1976 in Rajasthan and thereafter joined Gujarat Agricultural University from 11.10.1976 and retired on 28.02.1994.

[1.2] By way of this petition the petitioner wanted his services rendered with Rajasthan Government to be counted for the purpose of pension. The petitioner is getting pension on the basis of his service rendered in the respondent - University.

[1.3] According to the petitioner, the Gujarat Agricultural University by Notification dated 06.12.1991 decided to count the services rendered by the employees in other Institutions for the purpose of pension. The said Notification came to be

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

issued in view of the decision of the Board of Management taken in its 105th meeting at Agenda No.105.23 by Notification dated 05.05.1998, which is at page 13 of the petition. The respondent - University declared that the State Government by letter dated 03.03.1998 approved the Notification dated 06.12.1991 whereby the respondent - University resolved to treat as continuous prior service, for the purpose of pension, rendered by its employee with Central Government, State Government or its autonomous Institutions, of Central Government or State Government.

[1.4] According to the petitioner the prior services rendered by him with Rajasthan Government were required to be counted for the purpose of pension by the respondent - University. Pursuant to the said Notification, the Director of the Accounts of respondent - University vide letter dated 23.05.2000 informed Assistant Administrative Officer of the University to recover an amount of Rs.95974/- including interest, which was to be paid by the petitioner for counting his earlier service rendered by him with Rajasthan Government were to be counted for the purpose of pension with the services rendered in the respondent - University. The petitioner paid the said amount by way of challan on 25.09.2000. The petitioner was asked to deposit the said amount pursuant to an order by the Registrar of the University dated 28.02.2000 as prior services rendered with the Rajasthan Government by the petitioner was to be counted as continuous services for the purpose of pension on the conditions mentioned in the said order dated 28.02.2000, which is at page 18 to the petition. However, by another communication dated 30.08.2000 by the Registrar of

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

Agricultural University addressed to the petitioner informing that the Government Resolution, based on which Notification dated 06.12.1991 passed by the University are not clear for counting past services rendered by the employees to other State Government and autonomous Institution created under respective State laws to the State of Gujarat and the Institutions created by the Gujarat State and vice versa, it is intimated that the University shall have to approach the State Government for its approval to extend such benefits, and therefore, order dated 28.02.2000 came to be kept in abeyance whereby it was ordered that prior services rendered by the petitioner is to be counted for the purpose of pension as continuous service with the University.

[1.5] The guidance was sought for from the State Government whether benefit of counting prior services can be extended to the petitioner and other employees or not. However, in the meanwhile, vide communication dated 21.01.2002, the petitioner addressed a letter to the then Chief Minister praying for permitting counting of his prior services rendered at Rajasthan Government for the purpose of pension as continuous service with the Gujarat Agricultural University. However, the State Government in its Agricultural and Cooperation Department vide communication dated 17.06.2002 replied that if prior services of the employees of the University is rendered with Central Government, any autonomous body or Corporation constituted by an Act of Central Government or the State Government or any autonomous body created by statute by the State Government can be joined as continuous service for the purpose of pension. However, no such benefit is available to

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

the employees, who have rendered their prior services with any other State Government or any autonomous body constituted under the Act of the State Government. It was also mentioned that there is no corresponding reciprocal arrangements made by the Gujarat State and Rajasthan State recognizing prior services rendered with them to be considered for the purpose of pension, and therefore, the request made by the petitioner to the then Chief Minister of the State came to be rejected.

[1.6] By communication dated 15.09.2003, the respondent - University requested the State Government to approve the Rules framed by it as prior services rendered by its employees with other State Governments, the University feels certain administrative difficulties while implementing the Resolutions of the State Government as also the Central Government. However, the University has determined to implement the Rules dated 05.07.2003 by way of Resolution only after the approval is granted by the State Government. The petitioner has annexed it at page 34 i.e the Rules framed by the University. According to the petitioner his prior services rendered with Rajasthan Government is required to be counted as continuous service for the purpose of pension rendered by him with the respondent University.

[1.7] According to the petitioner, the University, being autonomous body, is empowered to frame the Rules /conditions of service of its employees and there is no need to get approval from the State Government. For the said purpose, he has relied on the communication addressed by the Registrar of the University dated 09.10.2004 addressed to the

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar whereby it is stated that the Rules framed by it for considering the prior services rendered by its employees with other State Governments is to be counted as continuous service for the purpose of pension does not need any approval. However, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of V.A. Vadukar Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.9467 of 1998, as also in view of Sections 23(1) and 26(1) of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1969'), the Board of Management of the University is empowered to frame the Rules /conditions of service of its employees, which is not requiring any approval of the State Government under the 'Act, 1969', and therefore, it was requested that the exercise undertaken for the approval of those Rules becomes redundant.

[2.0] Shri G.M. Joshi, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel appearing with Shri Vyom Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that since the year 1991 the University has resolved treating as continuous prior service rendered by its employees for the purpose of pension with other State Governments or autonomous body, and therefore, prior services of the petitioner from 04.01.1961 to 07.10.1976 is required to be counted towards service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension. He has further submitted that even in the year 2003 University has framed its Rules making it as pensionable, the prior services rendered by its employees with the State Government, Central Government and /or any autonomous body constituted under the respective laws. Therefore, the prior services rendered by the petitioner is

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

required to be counted towards pensionable service of the petitioner with this University. Drawing attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9467 of 1998, more particularly, paragraph 4.2 thereof rendered relying on the decision of the Supreme Court holding that merely because the respondent - University is an autonomous body getting 100% grant from the State Government, they do not need any approval of the State Government for framing any Rules in respect of its employees with regard to any terms and conditions of their services. Relying on the decision in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Sardari Lal and Others reported in (2003) 10 SCC 253, which is already referred to in the aforesaid decision of this Court, Shri G.M. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the University being autonomous body, the State Government will not be entitled to interfere with the internal administration of the University, notwithstanding the fact that the State Government is the funding body until and unless the University statutes provides for the same or there is any act of legislation conferring that powers on the State Government. Therefore, it is submitted that the issue whether prior services rendered by its employees with other State Government or autonomous body is required to be counted as continuous service for the purpose of pension with this University or not, it is within the exclusive domain of the University and any decision taken thereof by the University by way of Resolution or framing any Rules need not require any approval from the State Government. It is further submitted that despite approval is sought for, it is uncalled for and it is to be ignored. According to his submission, since the University has by way of Resolution as also framing Rules decided to

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

count prior services rendered by its employees with other State Government and /or autonomous body for the purpose of pension, the pension of the petitioner is required to be fixed considering the services rendered by him with Rajasthan Government from 04.01.1961 to 07.10.1976. Therefore, he has submitted that the respondent - University is required to revise the pension counting the period from 04.01.1961 to 07.10.1976 as pensionable service and pay the arrears with 10% interest thereon. It is further prayed that the approval /sanction of the State Government is not necessary in the case of the petitioner for counting his service for pensionary benefits as not only the decision was taken but the petitioner was asked to pay the principal amount calculated by them and that was paid for the purpose.

[2.1] According to Shri G.M. Joshi, learned Counsel in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.9467 of 1998 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Sardari Lal and Ors reported in (2003) 10 SCC 253; in the case of Union of India Vs. Gurnam Singh reported in (1982) 2 SCC 314 and in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Ratan Behari Dey and Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 63, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Rules framed by the University as pension is a condition of service. Such rules can be framed by the University independently without any approval from the State Government. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that the University need not ask for or wait for approval or sanction of the State Government and cannot take a stand contrary to the settled law.

         C/SCA/14748/2005                                       JUDGMENT




[3.0]         In a rejoinder to the arguments submitted by the

learned Advocate for the respondent - University that this petition is barred by delay and latches as the petitioner has retired long back in the year 1994 and he has approached this Court for this purpose only in the year 2005, is required to be rejected as in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of and Others Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 that the benefit upto last three years from the filing of petition could be granted to the petitioner for the purpose of monetary aspect.

[3.1] As against that, Shri D.G. Chauhan, learned Advocate for the respondent - University, submitted that there is gross, inordinate and unexplained delay of 11 years in preferring this petition after the date of retirement i.e. 28.02.1994. He has further submitted that not only that even while joining the service in the year 1976 or thereafter prior to his retirement the petitioner has never requested that prior services rendered by him with Rajasthan Government be counted as continuous service at least for the purpose of pension with the respondent - University. It is further submitted that there is no whisper in the petition about the delay and no explanation is offered there in, and therefore, the petition is required to be rejected only on the ground of delay and latches. For the purpose Shri D.G. Chauhan, learned Advocate relied on the following decisions;

i. Tukaram Kanaram Joshi Vs. M.I.D.C & Ors, (2013) 1 SCC 353 (paras 12 to 15);

ii. State of Orrisa Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

436 (pg.52 to 54);

iii.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 (para

16);

iv.State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri & Others, (2016) 1 GLH 114 (SC) - (2015) 15 SCC 602 (paras - 20 to 28).

[3.2] Shri Chauhan, learned Counsel, has further submitted that while joining the service, the petitioner has accepted the appointment order without any pre-condition or without reserving any right to claim clubbing of the previous service rendered by him for the purpose of pensionary benefits with the respondent - University. It is further submitted that the Notifications dated 06.12.1991, 05.05,1998 and proposed Rules, which are placed at page 34 of the petition cannot be relied on for any purpose as it is not approved by the State Government. It is further submitted that even the proposed Rules are neither sanctioned by the State Government nor implemented by the University, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner is required to be rejected.

[3.3] He has further submitted that the claim made in this petition was already rejected by the State Government vide communication dated 17.06.2002 and despite that the petitioner did not challenge the same at least for about three years thereof, and therefore, this petition is filed beyond three years after the communication of rejecting the request by the State Government.

[3.4]          It is further submitted that there are no Rules and




         C/SCA/14748/2005                                           JUDGMENT

Regulations and Circulars providing clubbing of past service rendered in other States. Once the petitioner had accepted fresh appointment in the respondent - University, prior services rendered by the petitioner cannot be counted as continuous service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner is hit by the doctrine of estopple, waiver of acquiescence. For the same, Shri Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has relied on the following decisions.

i. Union Bank of India Vs. N.B. Dhobi, (2006) 1 GLR 82, headnote A & B (para - 16 relevant @ pg.91 bottom) ii. U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 (paras 12 & 13)

[3.5] It is further submitted that the service conditions of the petitioner were governed under the provisions of 'Act, 1969' and Statutes 1972 framed thereunder. Schedule II of First Statute contains 'Gujarat Agricultural University Employees Pension Rules'. It is submitted that as per the Rules services rendered prior to resignation shall not be included for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. Therefore, it is submitted that since the petitioner has resigned from his service rendered at Rajasthan, cannot be included for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, and therefore, he has requested to reject the petition.

[4.0] Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader, drawing attention of the Court to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1, submitted that for joining the

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

present service, the petitioner had resigned from the previous service, and therefore, the said period cannot be added to the qualifying pensionable service. At the same time, it is further submitted that there is no government policy for counting previous service for the purpose of pension of the employees, who have rendered their service in autonomous body of other State.

[5.0] Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties and taking into consideration the documents produced alongwith the petition and the respective replies for determining the claim made in the petition, documents as also the provisions of law are required to be considered in detail.

[5.1] The prayer claimed by the petitioner is for counting prior services from 04.01.1961 to 07.10.1976 rendered at Rajasthan for the purpose of pensionable service rendered with the respondent - Gujarat Agricultural University. There has to be a corresponding reciprocal policy between two States i.e. State of Gujarat as also State of Rajasthan. Over and above that since the petitioner has resigned before joining the service of the respondent - University, the service rendered by him at Rajasthan University cannot be joined as continuous service for the purpose of pension in the present case. As mentioned in the affidavit filed by the respondent - University, the statutes under the 'Act, 1969' refer about the qualifying service, pensionable pay and amount of pension whereas Rule 11.1 of Gujarat Agricultural University Employees Pension Rules deals with the qualifying service of the employees of University wherein what kind of prior service is rendered by the employee be included for the purpose of pension is clearly shown. It has

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

been clearly stated that the services prior to resignation shall not be included for the purpose of qualifying service for pension.

[5.2] Drawing attention to the certificate, annexed with the reply at page 56 by the University, issued by SKN College of Agriculture, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Jobner, it is clear that he worked as lecturer from 04.01.1961 to 31.12.1963 and his service was transferred from Government of Rajasthan to the University of Udaipur by way of option from 01.01.1964 and he worked as Assistant Professor of Entomology in University of Udaipur from 01.01.1964 to 07.10.1976. It also clarifies that the petitioner had sought for retirement from service from the University as per Rule 21 of the University of Udaipur Teachers (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976 with effect from 07.10.1976, and therefore, after retirement from University of Rajasthan he has joined the services with the respondent - University afresh. Unless there is a specific Resolution or Rules providing for the same either by the University or by the State of Gujarat, the prior services rendered by the petitioner in other States cannot be considered as continuous service for the purpose of pension as sought to be claimed.

[5.3] Considering the reliance placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner to the Notification dated 06.12.1991 by the Gujarat Agricultural University providing the conditions to be fulfilled for considering pensionable service, which is at page 11 to the petition, the very first condition in the said Notification provides that the employee must have joined the service of Gujarat Agricultural University either from

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

the service of Central Government or any autonomous body of the Central Government or any Corporation of the Central Government or he must have joined the service of Gujarat Agricultural University from the autonomous body manned by the State of Gujarat or any Corporation of it. At the same time, it further provides that in such Institution/government, pension scheme must be in force and he must have opted for the same, and therefore, even if the said Notification is approved by the State Government, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit thereof as he cannot be said to have joined the services of Gujarat Agricultural University from the service of Central Government or State Government, and therefore, he is not entitled to join prior services rendered at State of Rajasthan for the purpose of pension with the service rendered with Agricultural University here. Though Director of Accounts of the University had asked the petitioner to deposit Rs.95,974/- including interest pursuant to Notification dated 06.12.1991 for counting his prior service rendered at Rajasthan for the purpose of pension and the payment thereof will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner as he did not fulfill the criteria to have the benefit mentioned in the said Notification as aforesaid. Thus, even if the Registrar of University by an order dated 28.02.2000 passed an order pursuant to the Notification dated 06.12.1991 to count the prior service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of pension, it is of no consequence. As such, vide communication dated 30.08.2000 addressed to the petitioner, the Registrar of University informed that the order approving his prior service to be counted for the purpose of pension is kept in abeyance in view of the fact that Government Resolutions are not clear for counting of past services rendered by such employees to other

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

State Governments and autonomous Institutions created under respective State laws to the State of Gujarat and the Institutions created by the Gujarat State and vice versa, and therefore, it is mentioned in the communication that University will have to approach State Government for its approval to extend such benefits. It was further informed to him that on receipt of decision in that regard, the request of the petitioner for counting past service for the purpose of pension can be considered. Vide communication dated 16.10.2000 the Registrar of Gujarat Agricultural University sought for approval as also clarification from the State Government as Notification dated 16.12.1991 of the University relies on the Resolutions of the State Government as also Central Government for the purpose. The amount deposited by the petitioner, as aforesaid, has been refunded to the petitioner as reflected from the affidavit-in-reply.

[5.4] Since the petitioner retired on 28.02.1994 and no final decision was taken whether to count prior services rendered by him at State of Rajasthan for the purpose of pension he addressed a representation to then then Chief Minister on 21.01.2002 to pass an order of counting the prior services of the petitioner with Rajasthan University as continuous service for the purpose of pension with the service rendered by him at Gujarat Agricultural University. However, the said representation was specifically rejected denying the benefit by communication dated 17.06.2002.

[5.5] However, Shri G.M. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate, learned Counsel, submitted that the University is an autonomous body. It is entitled for taking any decision with

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

respect to the conditions of the service of its employees. It is further submitted that the pension is also a condition of service, and therefore, the respondent - University is at liberty to determine whether the prior service rendered by its employee with other State Government or other Institution can be counted with the service rendered with it for the purpose of pension or not.

[5.6] He has further submitted that the respondent - University has also framed Rules in respect of prior service rendered by its employees to be considered as pensionable service with the University. The said Rules were sent for approval /consent to the State Government vide communication dated 15.09.2003. Relying on the decision of this Court wherein Supreme Court decision is considered and held that even if the State Government is providing 100% grant to the University the State Government is not entitled to interfere with the internal administration of the University until and unless the Act or statute provides for the same. For the purpose he relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of V.A. Vadukar (Supra) in case of employee of this very University. According to the submission of Shri Joshi, learned Senior Advocate the communication dated 09.10.2004 addressed to the Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department by the Registrar of University is self eloquent about interference of State Government in the internal administration of the University. He has submitted that as such the University had resolved to implement the Rules framed by it for the purpose of counting prior services rendered by its employees with other Institutions as pensionable service after the approval by the State

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

Government but in view of the decision of this Court as also Supreme Court no such approval is needed, and therefore, according to the submission of Shri Joshi, learned Senior Advocate in view of the Rules in existence, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed in the petition. However, despite the Rules framed for the purpose, University itself resolved to implement it only after approval by the State Government, and therefore, once it is never implemented by the University and sought for approval from the State Government, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of such Rules. The decision of this Court in the case of V.A. Vadukar (Supra) is not applicable to the present case as there is no question of interference with the internal administration of the University by the State Government and it is on the contrary the decision of the University itself to seek approval of the State Government. Moreover such Rules and decision of counting prior services rendered by its employees with other Institutions of other State for the purpose of pension with the University is a policy decision having financial implication, which is required to be taken by the State Government alone and so far as decision of the University not to implement such Rules, though framed, the petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled for the relief claimed in this petition. So far as Notification dated 06.12.1991 is concerned, the petitioner is not fulfilling the criteria mentioned in it as discussed hereinabove whereas Rules framed for the purpose, which were never implemented by the decision of the University itself unless approved by the State Government. As such, approval to the same, which involves financial implication to a policy decision in absence of corresponding reciprocal arrangement with other State Governments, is specifically refused. Even

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

framing of the statutes or rules by the University is valid unless and until it is assented to by the Chancellor in view of Sub- Section (5) of Section 29 of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2004'), which came into force on 01.05.2004, it is clear that prior to coming into force of 'Act, 2004' no decision was taken by the University to include the prior service of its employees with the services rendered in the University for the purpose of pension, without the approval of the State Government the petitioner cannot successfully contend that in view of the judgment rendered in the case of V.A. Vadukar (Supra) and the decision of the Supreme Court relied therein could be applied and is entitled for the same.

[5.7] As such, it is not the case of either of the Advocates that under the 'Act, 1969' before framing the statute University has to seek assent of the Chancellor. In absence of such provision in the 'Act, 1969', the decision rendered by the Supreme Court as also relied on by this Court in the case of V.A. Vadukar (Supra) would not be applicable in view of specific provision made in the 'Act, 2004'. Even presuming that the decision in the case of V.A. Vadukar (Supra) prohibits State Government from interfering with the internal administration of the University in absence of any provision made in the Act itself the decision of the University itself that they will not implement such Notification or Rules conferring the benefit of its employees without the approval of the State Government, it cannot be said that they have implemented the same. When it comes for implementation by communication dated 09.10.2004 informing the State Government by the University that they do not need any approval of the State

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

Government by the time 'Act, 2004' came into existence, and therefore, for framing any statute or such Rules assent of the Chancellor is required and in absence of such assent decision of University would be rendered illegal.

[5.8] At any rate, joining of the service with the respondent - University by the petitioner is based on a contract. There is no contract placed on record either by the petitioner or by the University. As such it is not the case of the petitioner that he joined services of the respondent - University on a condition that prior service rendered by him with Rajasthan State Government would be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Not only that, during the time he was in service of the University, he has never prayed for that. The fact remains that University of its own passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit certain amount for the purpose considering his previous service rendered with the Rajasthan Government as pensionable service to be counted for the purpose of pension, which was ultimately kept in abeyance and the said decision was sent to the State Government for the purpose of its approval. The action of the University to count prior service of its employees rendered with other Institutions out of State of Gujarat is a policy decision having financial implication, and therefore, University could not have, on its own, without approval of the State Government decided the same. Even the Court cannot direct the State Government to take any particular policy decision, which has financial implications. At any rate, till the petitioner retired, he had not prayed for the same from the University, and therefore, pursuant to the order of the University if he has deposited any amount, which has been

C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT

returned to him, for getting such benefit, which was thereafter kept in abeyance he cannot claim benefit thereof. Even he himself represented to the State Government requesting to grant such benefit to him, which was specifically refused by the State Government and more than three years thereafter he has filed the present petition. From the date of his joining service of the respondent - University till he retired on 28.02.1994, he has never claimed such benefit. It was not even a part of his condition of his joining service with the respondent - University, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the same.

[6.0] Since on its merits, on facts, decision is arrived at, specific reference to the precedents produced and pressed into service of the learned Advocate for the purpose is not required. Hence, I see no merit in this petition, and therefore, this petition is rejected. Rule is discharged.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) siji