State Of Gujarat vs Chandrasinh Relibhai Chaudhari
2021 Latest Caselaw 5516 Guj

     C/LPA/415/2021                               ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 415 of 2021

          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16433 of 2017

                                 With
              CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
              In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 415 of 2021
==========================================================
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
                                  Versus
                      CHANDRASINH RELIBHAI CHAUDHARI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAN JAISWAL AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                              Date : 07/06/2021

                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI)

1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, the State - appellants herein have challenged the order dated 04.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16433 of 2017, whereby while allowing the petition preferred by the petitioner - present Respondent no.1, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the order dated 16.02.2015 whereby the superannuation age of the present respondent no.1 was reduced to 58 years from 60 years, with a direction for recovery of two years' salary drawn by the Respondent no.1 herein and also quashed and set aside the order dated 03.07.2017 whereby the

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

order dated 16.02.2015 was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner, office of the Commissioner of Higher Education. The learned Single Judge further directed the present appellant to consider the age of superannuation as 14.06.2014 and to calculate the retiral benefits of Respondent no.1 herein i.e. gratuity, encashment of leave etc. to be counted by treating the superannuation age as 14.06..2014. The present appellant was further directed to pay the pensionary benefits to the present Respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the writ of the order.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under:

2.1 The present appellants are the original respondent no.1 and 3 whereas the respondent no.1 herein was the original petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16433 of 2017.

2.2 It was the case of the present Respondent no.1 being the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that, on 18.05.1982 he was appointed as Junior Clerk / Typist on ad hoc basis in the examination department and later on from 14.10.1982 he was appointed on probation for a period of two years. Subsequently, he was confirmed with effect from 15.10.1984 vide order dated 29.10.1984 and later on he was appointed as Junior Stenographer in the pay-scale of Rs.1640 - 2900 on probation for a period of

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

two years and thereafter vide order dated 28.10.1994 he was confirmed on the said post with effect from 02.11.1994. In between from the years 1982 to 1992 the petitioner got the benefits of extension of pay-scale and even the first higher grade scale on completion of 9 years of service.

2.3 On 31.03.2012, the Respondent No.2 - University issued an order to the effect that the Respondent No.1 herein (original petitioner) would be retired with effect from 14.06.2014 on reaching the superannuation age of 60 years. After the Respondent No.1 herein superannuated from service, on 11.12.2014 an order was passed by the Respondent No.2 University stating that the age of retirement of Respondent No.1 should be considered as 58 years and not the 60 years and, therefore, he ought to have been treated as retired with effect from 14.06.2012 and accordingly vide order dated 11.12.2014 the order dated 31.03.2012 retiring the petitioner from 14.06.2014 was cancelled.

2.4 Subsequently, the present appellant passed an order dated 16.02.2015 treating the retirement age of present Respondent no.1 as 58 years and thereby reducing two years from his age of superannuation of 60 years for which he actually served and treated his date of retirement as 14.06.2012 and directed the authority to recover the salary paid to the Respondent No.1 herein from 15.06.2012 to 14.06.2014.

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

2.5 Against the aforesaid order, the present Respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.11966 of 2015 and in that petition, the order of recovery was set aside on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice and the present appellants were directed to hear the Respondent no.1 herein and to pass fresh orders. Even after hearing the present Respondent No.1, the appellants once again passed an order dated 07.03.2017 and confirmed the order dated 16.02.2015.

2.6 Aforesaid two orders dated 16.02.2015 and 07.03.2017 were subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge by way of Special Civil Application No.16433 of 2017 and the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, quashed and set aside both the orders dated 16.02.2015 and 07.03.2017 and issued further directions, as stated in forgoing paras.

2.7 Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.08.2020 in Special Civil Application No.16433 of 2017, the appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. We have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhavan Jaiswal for the appellants who submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by not taking into consideration the Government

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

Resolution dated 26.09.1989 and Clause-8 thereof wherein it is specifically stated that the age of superannuation retirement for the staff recruited before 01.10.1984 would be 60 years whereas the age of superannuation retirement for the staff which has been recruited on and from 01.10.1984 would be 58 years. Mr.Jaiswal further submitted that the decision of Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.2259 of 2017 dated 02.05.2019 relied upon by the learned Single Judge is not in respect of as to which age should be considered as an age of superannuation but was in respect of entitlement of CPF and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed an error by allowing the petition.

3.1 No other or further submissions were made by Mr.Jaiswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader.

4. We have considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we have gone through the entire record of Special Civil Application No.16433 of 2017. It is an admitted position that vide order dated 31.03.2012, the Respondent No.2 specifically stated that Respondent No.1 would complete 60 years of service on 01.06.2014 and hence he would be superannuated on 14.04.2014 after the office hours. After the order dated 31.03.2012 was passed, after more than two and half years and after the Respondent No.1 completed 60 years of age and attained the age of superannuation under the Respondent No.2, vide order dated 11.12.2014 the Respondent No.2, for the

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

first time, indicated that the original petitioner's ( respondent No.1 herein) services would come to an end on completion of 58 years of age and not 60 years and hence for interregnum period of two years, during which the Respondent No.1 had already served and drawn the salary, the same would be required to be recovered and cancelled the order dated 31.03.2012. Thereafter the present appellants, vide order dated 16.02.2015, treated the date of retirement of Respondent No.1 herein as 14.06.2012 and ordered the recovery.

4.1 The aforesaid chain of events would indicate that, at no point of time, there was any misrepresentation on the part of Respondent No.1 in respect of his age. In fact, vide order dated 31.03.2012, the Respondent No.2 - University itself passed an order stating that the Respondent No.1 would be superannuated on 60 years of age with effect from 14.06.2014. The present Respondent No.1 was permitted to serve till the completion of age of 60 years and it is only after he was retired such series of orders were passed by the appellants and Respondent No.2 - University treating his age of superannuation as 58 years and not 60 years. A perusal of the orders dated 16.02.2015 or even 03.07.2017 would not indicate that Respondent No.1 has even remotely misrepresented in respect of his service condition. In fact, there are no allegations of misrepresentation against the Respondent No.1 or that the Respondent No.1 has fraudulently committed any fraud to ensure that his date of

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

superannuation be treated as 60 years and not 58 years.

4.2 In absence of element of any misrepresentation or fraud, the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

4.3 As far as argument advanced by Mr.Jaiswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader in respect of applicability of Clause - 8 of the Government Resolution dated 26.09.1989 is concerned, there also the learned Single Judge has, in order dated 04.08.2020, in para:9, observed thus:

"9. The issue that a person who is recruited prior to 01.10.1984 and even his past service even if it is fresh recruitment needs to be taken as service continuous for the purposes of government resolution dated 15.10.1984 is now a matter which is decided by a Division Bench of this court in LPA No.2259 of 2017 by a decision dated 02.05.2019. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has interpreted in detail relying on several decisions of this court, the resolution dated 15.10.1984, based on which the resolution of 26.09.1989 is passed. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under where even the word 'recruitment' has been interpreted and it has been held that past service should be considered for the purpose of recruitment and ought to be counted for pension purpose.

"4. In the petitions so filed, there were two classes of teaching staff concerned - (a) direct recruits who had two parts of service (i) pre 01.04.1982 in private colleges and (ii) post 01.04.1982 on resignation in other colleges through a direct selection (b) the other class of the teaching staff who may have continued in the same institution but through a due process of

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

selection, either by promotion or under the career advancement scheme risen in hierarchy from Tutor to Reader to Professor - a career spanning pre 01.04.1982 period and post 01.04.1982 period. In both these cases, the stand of the State Government was that since their initial appointment was prior to 01.04.1982, they were required to opt for pension option to switch over from CPF, which they did not, hence they were not entitled to pension.

4.1 The case of the petitioners was that irrespective of a fresh selection, post 01.04.1982, directly by joining an institution or climbing the ranks through promotion or career advancement they were "recruited" after 01.04.1982 and therefore as per clause (4) of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984, they were "automatically" governed by the pension scheme and there was no need for them to give any option for doing so. It was in this context that in one of the judgement (which all the judgements under challenge referred to) i.e. in the case of State of Gujarat Thro Secretary v. Bhupendra Vallabhdas Chudasama and another in Letters Patent Appeal No. 981 of 2015, the Court had answered the questions so raised in favour of the pensioner. The questions so raised read as under:

1. Whether an employee like the original petitioner who has been appointed after the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 can be denied the pension / pensionary benefits under the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 on the ground that he had not exercised the option for GPF?

2.Whether past services of such an employee is required to be counted for qualifying services for pension?

3.Whether the past services is required to be counted / considered for fixation of the pension or for qualifying services for pension only?

(c) Reading of clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 indicate that the members of the existing staff recruited before 01.04.1982 and those staff who have retired on or after 01.04.1982 and prior to the date of issue of the resolution only have to exercise their option. Those

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

recruited on or after 01.04.1982 shall automatically be governed by the pension scheme of 1984. In the case of D.S Nakara vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, the Apex Court has held that the pension retirees have to be treated as a homogeneous class and that any further classification amongst them would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that the principle that when a certain date or eligibility criteria is selected with reference to legislative or executive measure which has the pernicious tendency of dividing an otherwise homogeneous class and the choice of beneficiaries of the legislative/executive action becomes selective, the division or classification made by choice of date or eligibility criteria must have some relation to the objects sought to be achieved. And apart from the first test that the division must be referable to some rational principle, if the choice of the date or classification is wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved, it cannot be upheld on the specious plea that was the choice of the Legislature. In the facts of the present case, it is evident in accordance with the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), that all of them form a homogeneous group who have been working with the institution and therefore it is not fair for the 'State' to discriminate only on the ground of cut off date.

(d) What is evident from the service details of the respondents is that they had two spells of service. The first spell was prior to 01.04.1982 and the second one after 01.04.1982. As far as the first spell is concerned there was only one scheme CPF, therefore there was no question of exercising option. In the second spell, when they joined there was no question of exercising option as the pension scheme was compulsory. They were, to use the words of clause 4 of the resolution, "automatically" governed by the pension scheme as therefore there was no fault, inaction or omission which would disentitle them to claim pension. The disability of filling in the option form or asking for switching over belatedly cannot be held against them.

(e) As held in the case of S.S. Patel (supra) which has received affirmation even by the Apex Court that the

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

two clauses of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 i.e. clauses 4 & 6 respectively cannot be read in isolation of each other, it will not be out of place to repeat the observations of this Court to make that clear.

"16. At the same time the prior to issuance of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 which was made effective with retrospective effect from 1.4.1982, employee had no opportunity whatsoever, whether to opt for pension or for any other scheme and such an employee used to be governed by prevailing system of C.P.F.. When the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 came to be issued, the petitioner was serving as a lecturer with S.V.R.College of Engineering and Technology at Surat, which was a Regional Engineering College and later on nomenclatured as National Institute of Technology, the G.R. was not applicable to Engineering College which was under Government of India. From the record, what appears, the petitioner had continued to be Governed by the existing scheme ?the provident fund for employees of the S.V.R. College of Engineering and Technology (Surat) Society? as per option exercised in 1978. There is no dispute about the amount which was credited in the account of the petitioner, came to be collected and ultimately in year 2000, the petitioner deposited the said amount with interest. After resigning from the S.V.R. College of Engineering, when the petitioner joined as a 'Reader' with South Gujarat University from 31.3.1986 and served upto 5.10.1988, the petitioner was a Recruitee after 1.4.1982 and was being governed automatically for pension scheme as introduced by G.R. dated 15.10.1984 and accordingly no contributory amount was deducted and only G.P.F. account was credited. Thus, as a Reader with South Gujarat University, the petitioner was getting benefit of the pension scheme. Even as per the respondents, the period commencing from 31.3.1986 till the date of voluntary retirement on 30.11.2000, the service of the petitioner can be considered for pensionable job. The above fact is admitted in para 10 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 19th December, 2007 filed by Accounts Officer of Commissioner of Higher

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

Education and, therefore, the interpretation of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 mainly revolves round Clauses 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the above Government Resolution and to be examined accordingly.

16.1. If the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 is perused the preamble of the resolution is pertaining to grant of benefit of pension scheme for the teaching staff in the NonGovernment Affiliated Colleges and in the Universities at par with employees of the Government of Gujarat under Revised Pension Rules, 1950 as amended from time to time. Therefore, if Clause 3 is perused, two types of employees were to exercise option, viz. (1) members of the existing staff recruited before 1.4.1982 and (2) those staff who have retired on or after 1.4.1982 and prior to the date of issue of this resolution within a period of one year from the above date, whether to continue in C.P.F. or to go under the pension scheme and such option was to be final. In Clause 4, it is clearly stated that member of the staff recruited on or after 1st April, 1982 shall automatically be governed by this scheme and such staff will not be allowed to opt for C.P.F. Therefore, if principle of plain reading is applied, all the contents of the clauses read together, what transpires is that the member of the staff recruited on or after 1st April, 1982 was not supposed to exercise an option since he was to be automatically governed by the scheme. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he was recruited directly after the advertisement issued by the concerned Universities on the post of 'Reader' in South Gujarat University on 31.3.1986 to 5.10.1988 and later on appointed in the M.S. University as a 'Reader' from 6.10.1988 after undergoing valid selection procedure. Thus, the case of the petitioner is not governed by Clause 3 of the Government Resolution in view of fact that neither the petitioner is a member of existing staff recruited prior to 1.4.1982 nor he retired from 1.4.1982 to 15.10.1984. Therefore, the contention of learned AGP that the petitioner was to exercise option for pension which was mandatory, cannot be

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

accepted and is hereby rejected.

16.2. So far as width and amplitude of Clause 6 of Government Resolution is concerned, it confers benefits upon an employee of all previous service whether temporary, officiating or permanent either in one or more than one non-government aided Colleges, University, Higher Secondary School who are being paid grant-in-aid from Government shall be taken into account for computing the length of qualifying service for pension under this scheme. If the above clause is made applicable to the petitioner, service rendered in the B.V.M.College of Engineering at Vallabh Vidhyanagar as 'Assistant Lecturer' and even, subsequent service as a 'Lecturer' in the S.V.R. College of Engineering and Technology are to be counted since the above two colleges are recognised colleges and in view of service rendered in Non-Government Aided Colleges of the State of Gujarat and Union of India can be considered for qualifying service for pension and calculation of pensionable qualifying service by two offices of respondent Nos. 1 and 5 at the time of accepting application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner was just and proper and cannot be brought within the preview of Rule 41 (1) (a) of the Pension Rules, to deny pension to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had not rendered any service in a pensionable establishment. The fact remains that the petitioner was a member of C.P.F. in both the above colleges and resigned from the service and ceased to be a member of C.P.F. for all purposes. It is very clear from the plain reading of clause 6 that clause 6 does not distinguish employees rendering service in a pensionable or non-pensionable establishment and on the contrary it covers all kinds of services even temporary or officiating rendered in Non-Government Aided Colleges. Even otherwise, no material contrary exist to show that the above two colleges were nonpensionable establishment.

16.3. If the submissions of learned AGP are accepted that to get benefits of clause 6 of G.R. of 15.10.1984, option is to be exercised as per clause 3, provisions of clause 6 will become redundant and

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

inoperative for a recruitee on or after 1.4.1982. Neither clause 4 nor clause 6 envisaged or mandate a recruitee after 1.4.1982 to exercise any option as per clause 3. It can be safely concluded from the above, that the basic purpose of Clause 6 is to complete minimum years of qualified pension service for all existing and recruited employees before 1.4.1982 and retired between 1.4.1982 to 15.10.1984 and recruited after 1.4.1982, like the petitioner, clause 6 cannot be pressed into service for exercising option for the scheme by both pre and post 1.4.1982 recruitees, otherwise even clause 4 will be rendered nugatory. At the same time, failure to exercise an option on the part of post 1.4.1982 recruitee, making him vulnerable for benefits of previous services as per clause 6, will be against the spirit and object of the scheme and will be creating artificial, arbitrary and discriminatory dividing line amongst university teaching staff not found in clause 6.

16.4. Likewise it was not obligatory at all upon the petitioner to exercise option as per subsequent G.R. 's dated 17.12.1987 and 17.9.1991 in view of the fact that the petitioner was automatically governed by pension scheme by G.R. dated 15.10.1984. At the same time there is no break of service of the petitioner from 22.7.1968 to 30.11.2000 and, therefore, rest of contents of clause 6 are not to be gone into.

16.5. Thus, when clause 6 is unambiguous and benefits of all previous services are not restricted to optee only, no other interpretation is permissible and restricting such benefits to the recruitee like the petitioner pursuant to fresh appointment on or after 1.4.1982 and automatically governed by clause 4 of the G.R., any attempt to add or alter any meaning of any word of phrase of clause 6 would amount giving narrow meaning to clause 6 which is not envisaged at all by the draftsman of the resolution. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for continuity and gets benefit of all previous services rendered in B.V.M. College of Engineering and S.V.R. College of Engineering and Technology and the same is rightly considered by respondents No.

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

1 and 4 at relevant point of time while granting voluntarily retirement to the petitioner and, therefore, now they cannot be permitted to take another view and they are estopped from doing so. The petitioner has relied and acted on the orders passed by respondents No. 1 and 4 and preponed the date of superannuation now cannot be placed in disadvantageous position on the basis of ipsi-dixi of officers of Respondents No.1 and 4.

16.6. The above fact will be clear if we read Clause 7 in juxtaposition to Clause 4 and 6, which carves out an exception with regard to applicability of general provision of Chapter 11 of B.C.S.R. Volume I in granting retirement benefits in case if a special provisions are made, the above applicability can be kept aside and this pension scheme of G.R. dated 15.10.1984 being a special scheme conferring benefits of pension and retiral dues, will govern the case of the petitioner and the contention of learned AGP about applicability of Rule 41(1) (a) cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected."

(f) Considering the tenor of the word "recruitment" as held in the case of K. Narayan vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1994 SC 55, which according to the dictionary meaning means "enlist", it includes any method of inducting a person in public service. Appointment, selection, promotion, deputation are all well known methods of recruitment.

12. Having perused the facts in the context of the term what is apparent is from the Government Resolutions dated 23.11.1976 and 14.09.1988, the selection is by issuance of a public advertisement. Once a person makes an application, a duly constituted selection committee is formed. Even in the Career Advancement Scheme, the modus is of recruitment. All these aspects were rightly considered in the decision in the case of Dr. S.G. Trivedi (supra) where the Court specifically held that if it is found that respondent no.1 joined services of South Gujarat University only on 01-10-1984 and the earlier services of respondent no.1 cannot be said to have any bearing on question of applicability of the

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

pension scheme pursuant to Government Resolution dated 15-10-1984, his case for receiving pension would get a boost. On the other hand, if it is found that respondent no.1 who had served in private affiliated aided college right from 1964 and switched over to the university services on 01-10-1984 after tendering technical resignation, joined his duties immediately on the next date in the University Services and that therefore, respondent no.1 should be treated to have been in service prior to 01-04- 1982, the State Government would be justified in contending that Tribunal erred in granting pensionary benefits to the respondent no.1.

12.1 In the cases of L.P. Joshi (supra), Banuben Dhakkan (supra), Bhupendra Chudasama (supra) and Uma Chudasama (supra), this Court has reiterated and revisited the entire scheme of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 and in no uncertain terms held that if clause no. 3 of the resolution is perused there are two types of employees who have to exercise option namely (a) members of the existing staff recruited before 01.04.1982 (b) Those staff who have retired on or after 01.04.1982 and prior to the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. it is therefore the relief of option. Once an employee is a recruit post 01.04.1982, he automatically comes over to the pension scheme.

13. The objection of the State therefore that the subsequent decision of the respondents herein to ask for a switch over due to the rise in pension amounts to the revision of pay will also not hold good. Their coming over to pension being automatic, the State is obliged to extend the benefits. Once the learned Single Judge of the judgement under challenge had asked the State to so consider, the State was bound to consider the same positively in light of the directions so issued and not reject the same on the ground of financial implications. In fact, financial burden is no ground to deny benefits arising from the pension rules.

14. It is required to be noted that so far as the teaching staff is concerned, there is no concept of automatic promotion on higher posts on completion

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

of certain number of years. An employee has to acquire educational qualification and put in number of service to secure eligibility criteria for recruitment on higher post. Any appointment either direct or by transfer or by changing the post in the same institute and or in different institute for securing higher post or on a same post made after 1982 is covered under pension scheme - GPF for which option is not to be given as CPF scheme is discontinued with effect from 01.04.1982. It is settled that the employees even though recruited before 01.04.1982 on a given post but subsequently i.e. after 01.04.1982 if they are again recruited after following the procedure prescribed therein, then such employees are not required to give any option to switch over from CPF to GPF because of requirement of clause 4 of the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984. The said clause 4 at the cost of repetition is reproduced hereinbelow:

"4. The member of the staff recruited on or after 1 st April, 1982 shall automatically be governed by this scheme. Such staff will not be allowed to opt for contributory provident fund scheme."

14.1 Moreover, any recruitment/appointment made after 01.04.1982 for the teaching staff is through advertisement and selection hence it is fresh appointment and therefore pension scheme i.e. GPF is automatically applicable. Further, for the non teaching staff also, their promotion at a particular time is to be considered as recruitment and therefore they need not give the option at the time of promotion. In view of the overall facts of the case we are not inclined to entertain these appeals and therefore the appeals deserve to be dismissed."

Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the orders dated 16.02.2015 and 03.07.2017 by which the petitioner has been ordered to refund an amount of Rs.12,26,274/- deserve to be quashed and set aside."

5. From the above discussion, it could be clearly seen that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

Letters Patent Appeal No.2251 of 2017 dated 02.05.2019 is certainly a guiding factor in respect of the controversy in question and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the aforesaid judgment. Furthermore, we have also noticed the fact that the Respondent No.1 was permitted to retire by way of superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years by the present appellant as well as Respondent No.2 - University and it is only after five months after his superannuation, for the first time, Respondent No.2 indicated that the actual date of superannuation of Respondent No.1 should be 14.06.2012 and not 14.06.2014.

5.1 It is undisputed fact that between the period from 14.06.2012 to 14.06.2014, the Respondent No.1 has actually worked and the said work performed by the Respondent No.1 was never questioned by any of the appellant or Respondent No.2 University and was on the basis of order dated 31.03.2012 which was subsequently quashed by order dated 11.12.2014 by the Respondent No.2 University.

5.2 In such circumstance, we are in complete agreement with the view take by the learned Single Judge as the present appellants have miserably failed even in proving before this Bench, in Letters Patent Appeal, that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the Respondent No.1 herein (original petitioner) and, therefore, he was allowed to superannuate on completing the age of 60

C/LPA/415/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/06/2021

years.

6. In view of the above, the order dated 04.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference as we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

7. For the reasons recorded above, the present Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.

8. All the connected civil applications in this Appeal also shall stand disposed of in view of dismissal of the main Appeal.

(R.M.CHHAYA, J)

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) MISHRA AMIT V.