BHANWAR SINGH, J. ( 1 ) SRI Surendra Kumar Khanna has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to count the services rendered by him in the Agra University and fix his pension accordingly and further to pay the amount of leave encashment along with interest at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum. He has also prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari, thereby quashing paragraph 3 of the Government order dated 26. 12. 1995 (Annexure-7) with a direction to the opposite parties to grant the benefit of commutation of pension as admissible to other employees of the Sports College. ( 2 ) AS pleaded in the petition, the petitioner was appointed as Sports Teacher (Athletic) vide order dated 20. 6. 1975 in the U. P Sports College (hereinafter referred to as "the College"), Lucknow. Prior to his joining in the College, he was working as Athletic Coach in the Agra University since 6. 4. 1971. He relinquished his services in the Agra University after he joined in the College at Lucknow. His work, conduct and performance of his job have always been excellent as assessed by his superior officers, colleagues and students. In view of his unblemished and exemplary service, he was confirmed with effect from 28. 2. 1991 and he was also given the benefit of higher pay-scale vide Government Order dated 2. 11. 1993. The petitioner earned various certificates of appreciation from various institutions. On attaining the age of superannuation with the benefit of extension, he retired on 30. 6. 1995 after completing about 20 years of distinguished service to his credit. The authorities of the College, however, got annoyed with the petitioner as he had to file under the compelling circumstances a writ petition in the high Court seeking his extension upto the end of academic session, i. e. , 30. 6. 1995. As stated earlier, he succeeded in getting the advantage of extension but he had to suffer the wrath of his superiors, as a result of which his past service rendered in the Agra University was not counted for calculating his pension and even the benefit of leave encashment was denied to him. Further, his prayer for commutation of his pension was also declined. The Government, vide order dated 26. 12. Further, his prayer for commutation of his pension was also declined. The Government, vide order dated 26. 12. 1995, allowed the benefit of commutation of pension to the employees of U. P. Sports college but with prospective effect, in consonance whereof the petitioner who had already retired on 30. 6. 1995, was deprived of its advantage. As a matter of fact, this order was tainted with mala fides as it was issued to the detriment of the petitioner. The cut off date in the aforesaid order was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It, therefore, deserves to be quashed. On the strength of these allegations, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari and mandamus as mentioned above. ( 3 ) THE opposite parties resisted this writ petition and Sri Anand Shukla, the Director of the college filed on their behalf his counter-affidavit asserting therein that the petitioner was not entitled to claim the benefit of his past services rendered by him in the Agra University as he did not fulfil the conditions of the requisite Government Order dated 28. 1. 1988 by submitting necessary information including the details of the contributions of the Provident Fund deposited by him and the employer of Agra University. He also did not disclose his Provident Fund account. In absence of the necessary details, he was neither eligible nor entitled to have his past services included for the pensionary and other benefits. As a matter of fact, the U. P. Sports college, Lucknow is a Society having its own Board of Directors and as such, it is entirely different from a regular educational institution. In view of this distinction, the Government Order dated 19. 12. 1988 was not applicable to the employees of the College. ( 4 ) AS regards the Government Order of December 26, 1995, it was alleged by Sri Anand that the said Government Order was made applicable to all the employees of the College with effect from 26. 4. 1995, i. e. , long after the petitioner had superannuated and, as such, Sri Surendra Khanna was not singled out. Since the said Government Order was not applicable on the date of the petitioners retirement, he was not entitled to claim any benefit out of the said order. 4. 1995, i. e. , long after the petitioner had superannuated and, as such, Sri Surendra Khanna was not singled out. Since the said Government Order was not applicable on the date of the petitioners retirement, he was not entitled to claim any benefit out of the said order. So far as the petitioners claim regarding entitlement of encashment of leave is concerned, the opposite parties have stated that the facility of encashment of leave is not available to any employee of the college as the Government Order on the subject was not at all applicable to the employees of the college. There is no provision for such facility under the rules of the College. On these grounds, the opposite parties pleaded that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was devoid of merit and hence deserved to be dismissed. ( 5 ) PRECISELY, three issues have been raised for determination by this Court. These are : (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of his past service rendered by him in the agra University? If so, whether the duration of the said service can be included in the total of his service tenure with a view to computing his pension and other retiral dues. (2) Whether para 3 of the Government Order dated 26. 12. 1995 (Annexure-7) is arbitrary and unreasonable? If so, whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of commutation of pension. (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the leave encashment for 240 days along with interest as claimed? ( 6 ) PICKING up the first issue for discussion, it may be observed that the Government issued an order on January 28, 1988, extending certain benefits to the employees of the Sports College, lucknow. A copy of the said Government order is Annexure-4 on record. Whereas the petitioners contention is that he is entitled to have his past service included and computed for the purpose of calculating his pension and gratuity, etc, the opposite parties stand is that since the petitioner did not exercise his option within the prescribed period of 90 days, he would not get the benefit of the aforesaid Government order. Whereas the petitioners contention is that he is entitled to have his past service included and computed for the purpose of calculating his pension and gratuity, etc, the opposite parties stand is that since the petitioner did not exercise his option within the prescribed period of 90 days, he would not get the benefit of the aforesaid Government order. Supplementing further, the learned standing counsel for the opposite parties contended that the petitioner failed to complete certain formalities and fulfil the requirements of the Government order as a result of which he is neither eligible nor competent to have his past services included in the service rendered by him in the sports College. In this context, a reference to para 5 of the Government order would be relevant. It may be quoted as below :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 7 ) A perusal of the provisions of para 5 reveals that there are two conditions required to be fulfilled by a particular claimant to stake his right while claiming advantage of the past service. The first of them is that he has joined the new service in continuation of the service rendered by him in past and the second condition is that he had deposited the contribution of the G. P. F. along with interest in the treasury. The petitioner filed the relevant record of his past service and it is annexure-1 on record. The service book appears to indicate that the petitioner joined as an athletic coach in Agra University on 6. 4. 1971 and was in the continuous service up to July 11, 1975. This record has not been disputed by the opposite parties and, therefore, its genuineness has to be accepted. Similarly, the date of the petitioners joining in the Sports College on June 20, 1975, has not been disputed and in pursuance of his appointment, he joined the service in july, 1975. Obviously thus, the petitioner would be deemed to have resumed charge of his duty in the Sports College in continuation of his service in Agra University. Undoubtedly, a latitude has to be given to the joining time in between the two institutions. Further more, the opposite parties have not challenged the petitioners contention that there was no abnormal break between the two services. Undoubtedly, a latitude has to be given to the joining time in between the two institutions. Further more, the opposite parties have not challenged the petitioners contention that there was no abnormal break between the two services. The only objection raised by them is that the petitioner submitted his papers with inordinate delay, i. e. , only a few days before the petition was filed and further that he did not meet the requirement regarding deposition of G. P. F. amount. Also it was argued further that the services rendered by him in the Agra University were not to be taken into account as he did not exercise his option within 90 days from the date of the Government order having been issued. All these contentions of the opposite parties are fallacious and devoid of merit. The petitioner was in the service of the Sports College from 1975 to 1995, i. e. , for a long period of 20 years. The Government order was issued in the year 1988. The Accounts Section of the Sports college was under an obligation to circulate the Government order to all the employees of the college and invite their option within time. The petitioner cannot be blamed to have committed an omission unless he was informed that he was under the timely obligation to exercise his option. In para 7, it is recited that the option exercised by an employee shall be kept on his service book and the option was compulsory as it will have bearing upon his pension, gratuity, family pension and other retiral benefits. The service-book is maintained by the administrative department of every institution and even the opposite parties have not pleaded contrary to this. Although, receipt of the past service record of the petitioner is admitted to the opposite parties, yet they could not take any decision in the matter on the ground that such a record was received only a few days before the petition was filed. It has not been precisely stated as to when the record and the option of the petitioner was received nor it has been revealed as to why the delay, if at all on the part of the petitioner, could not be condoned. It has not been precisely stated as to when the record and the option of the petitioner was received nor it has been revealed as to why the delay, if at all on the part of the petitioner, could not be condoned. The administrative authorities whether they belong to the institution or the Sports College or the Government are expected to be friendly to an employee and not to behave in a rival manner so as to wreck vengeance in one way or the other. The college authorities as well as the authorities of the Government, in the case in hand, seem to have dealt with the petitioners demands in a callous and obstinate manner, they kept his representations pending for months together and then rejected without any convincing reasons. His service rendered in the field of Athletics, particularly his role played by him in the field of coaching of Olympics for fairly a long period, as is evident from the record, has been totally ignored. In spite of the fact that he deposited the contributory G. P. F. , no doubt with delay, his claim for computation of his past service was wrongly turned down. The principle of condonation of delay on sufficient grounds is always permissible. That is the canon of natural justice. The Government order of January 28, 1988 was made applicable only to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Sports College, Lucknow. The rules and procedures are framed as a handmaid to serve the cause of employees in public interest and not as a tool or a device to the detriment of such persons. Once the petitioner was asked by the College authorities to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,396. 30 in the form of a treasury challan (Annexure-RA-1), it was an indication that the decks have been cleared to apply the Government order in his case. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner obtained a certificate from the Agra University regarding his contribution in the G. P. F. account. Even in the aforesaid Government order, there is a provision to compensate the delay and it is in terms of the claimants depositing interest on the amount of the contributory fund required to be deposited. The petitioner carried out the said requirement. Even in the aforesaid Government order, there is a provision to compensate the delay and it is in terms of the claimants depositing interest on the amount of the contributory fund required to be deposited. The petitioner carried out the said requirement. ( 8 ) ANOTHER argument pressed into service on behalf of the opposite parties that the Agra university was an autonomous body and not a Government aided institution so as to attract the provisions of the Government order is altogether fallacious as in spite of the fact that a university is an autonomous body, it survives on the Governments financial aid and may not be out of place to mention that everybody knows how autonomous the Universities are these days? it is a common experience that in every matter, the Government has its interference in the affairs of the Universities through its education department and this is quite obvious from the fact that in the case of the Sports College, Lucknow, despite the fact of its being referred to as an independent institution, the Government has the final say in every matter. Even the Government order dated 14. 8. 1988 [annexure-5) was made applicable by the Government vide its arbitrary and discriminatory orders in the year 1995. In this background, it may, therefore, be held that the government order dated 28. 1. 1988 (Annexure-4 will be applicable in the case of the petitioner who rendered his services in the Agra University before joining the Sports College, Lucknow. ( 9 ) THE crux of the matter is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of his past service rendered by him in the Agra University and the duration of such service shall be included in his service of the Sports College and the combination of the two shall be reckoned with while computing his pension and other retiral benefits. ( 10 ) THE second point pertains to the petitioners claim regarding commutation of his pension. Reliance has been placed on the Declaration No. is- vk-and1and2246@4xand59 ,e@1988] dated 14. 8. 1988 (Annexure-5 ). A bare reading of this Declaration would reveal that it was made applicable to all the educational and training institutions which were aided by the U. P. Government. It remains undisputed that the Sports College, Lucknow, although is said to be an independent institution, falls within the ambit of Government aided institution. 8. 1988 (Annexure-5 ). A bare reading of this Declaration would reveal that it was made applicable to all the educational and training institutions which were aided by the U. P. Government. It remains undisputed that the Sports College, Lucknow, although is said to be an independent institution, falls within the ambit of Government aided institution. Further, it has not been denied, rather admitted, that the aforesaid Declaration was made applicable to the employees of the Sports College and the benefit contained therein extended to the employees of the College. Clause 22 of the said Declaration provides as follows :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . By Virtue of the Government order dated 19. 12. 1988 (Annexure-6), the benefit of commutation of pension was extended to the Government aided education and training Institutions as also the colleges. ( 11 ) THE petitioner, after his retirement in 1995, submitted his request for commutation of his pension but it was turned down on the strange decision by the Government that the Declaration dated 14. 8. 1988 (Annexure-5) would apply to the employees of the Sports College but with effect from December 26, 1995. A letter to this effect was issued by the Special Secretary. Sri om Prakash Pandey on 26. 12. 1995 and very cleverly, it was recited therein that the employees of the Sports College who had to their advantage the application of the Government order dated 28. 1. 1988 (Annexure-1) would also be entitled for commutation of pension at the rates enumerated therein but with effect from 21. 12. 1995. It was an arbitrary decision to apply the recommendations of the Pay Commission to the employees of the Sports College with effect from the aforesaid date while the same facility was provided to other schools, colleges and government aided training institutions with effect from 19. 12. 1988 itself. It goes without saying that the Sports College, Lucknow, imparts physical training to the students and its players and, therefore, there is no reason as to why its employees constituting teaching and non-teaching staff should not be treated at par with the similar categories of employees working in the other government aided schools, colleges and training institutions. 12. 1988 itself. It goes without saying that the Sports College, Lucknow, imparts physical training to the students and its players and, therefore, there is no reason as to why its employees constituting teaching and non-teaching staff should not be treated at par with the similar categories of employees working in the other government aided schools, colleges and training institutions. The opposite parties have not been able to give any reason as to why the employees of the Sports College were kept outside the purview of the commutation of the pension facility for nearly 7 years after the Pay Commissions report was accepted and made applicable to the similar categories of employees. As a matter of fact, the resolution of the Pay Commission issued in the year 1988 should have been extended to the employees of the Sports College, with effect from 14. 8. 1988 when its benefit was extended to other employees of the Government aided institutions. The condition of the date of the facility being applied to the Sports College was, in fact, violation of the earlier Government order, annexure-6. As said above, neither there was any Justification nor a plausible reason to discriminate between the employees of the Government aided Sports College and the other educational and training institution on the panel of the Government grant. In view of this aspect of the matter, the letter dated 26. 12. 1995 being arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory, was illegal and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. In sum and substance, the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of commutation of his pension as per the prescribed scales. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, the third issue regarding facility of encashment of leave on having attained the age of superannuation does not seem to have a tilt of the scale towards the petitioner. The leave encashment facility is not applicable to the retiring employees of other educational institutions and when it is so, the petitioner would also not get the advantage of the leave encashment facility. It has been clarified by the Government in its letter dated 24. 6. 1996 that the facility of leave encashment would not be extended to the employees of the Sports College as no such facility was available to the employees of other educational and training institutions. A copy of the aforesaid letter is Annexure-S3. It has been clarified by the Government in its letter dated 24. 6. 1996 that the facility of leave encashment would not be extended to the employees of the Sports College as no such facility was available to the employees of other educational and training institutions. A copy of the aforesaid letter is Annexure-S3. The petitioner has not controverted the contents of the said letter, particularly the averment that the employees of the Government aided educational and training institutions were not entitled to the benefit of leave encashment facility. For this simple reason, the petitioners demand for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to extent him the facility of leave encashment has to be rejected. The issue is decided accordingly. ( 13 ) IN view of the discussions made above, I am inclined to hold that this petition succeeds in part and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of the past services rendered by him in the Agra University and further he would also get the facility of commutation of pension. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari quashing para 3 of the letter (Annexure-7) is issued and as a consequence, the said para is set aside. Further, a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to include the past service of the petitioner rendered by him in Agra university in the total tenure of his service and reckon the entire period of his service and compute his pension. A writ of mandamus is also issued directing the opposite parties to extend to the petitioner the benefit of commutation of pension as per prescribed rates. The petitioners prayer to have the advantage of leave encashment facility is declined. .