IMPORTANT POINT
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present appeal, filed under the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, emanates from the judgment dated 02.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years.

2. Learned advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla appearing for the appellant-University has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petition since the respondent No. 1, who was serving in the appellant-University and employees like her are governed by the State Government Rules and accordingly, her age of retirement is 58 years and she reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.2017. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the notification dated 14.10.2020 issued by the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, which emphasis the age of employees working in the Institution of Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Jamnagar (IPGTRA) and Shree Gulabkunverba Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Jamnagar and the Indian Institute of Ayurveda Pharmaceutical Sciences, Jamnagar will not apply retrospectively.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla has submitted that the learned Single Judge has also considered the provisions of Fundamental Rules 56(a), while allowing the writ petition, which is misconceived, as the same would not apply in the case of the petitioner (respondent No. 1). He has pointed out that though a proposal was sent to the respondent No. 2-Union of India to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees from 58 years to 60 years, the same was not approved by the Union of India and hence, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim the retirement on attaining the age of 60 years. It is submitted that a conscious decision was taken by the appellant-University vide circular(s) dated 18/31.03.2016 that except the subject of superannuation age, other benefits are granted on service related matters, as per the Central Civil Services Rules promulgated by the Government of India. The same are made applicable to the employees of the appellant- University. While referring to the communication dated 16.01.2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush, it is submitted that the issue of extending the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years was not accepted and it is specifically held that the same will apply prospectively, after issuing appropriate notification and amended rules.

4. While referring to the affidavit filed by the State Government, which is incorporated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment, it is submitted that the State Government has categorically stated that the respondent No. 1 will be governed by the State of Gujarat Rules, which determines the age of superannuation at 58 years. Respondent No. 1. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Shushil Shukla appearing for the respondent No. 2 has adopted the arguments made by learned advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla appearing on behalf of the appellant-University.

6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Ms. Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1(original petitioner) at the outset, has submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable since the appellant-University is governed by the provisions of the Central Civil Services Rules and all the funds are being extended by the Central Government however, Union of India has chosen not to file appeal. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Vinodbhai Khodidas Vs. Patel Pravinbhai Kachrabhai, 2021 (3) GLR 2601.

7. While referring to the Board Meeting, which was held by the appellant-University on 16.10.2015, learned advocate Ms. Pandya has submitted that it was r