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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
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
