JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. Rule. Learned AGP Shri S.P. Hasurkar waives service of rule on behalf of - State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, who retired from the post of Reader from M.S. University, Baroda w.e.f. 30.11.2000 for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the authorities, to finalise the pension case of the petitioner and make payment of pension, gratuity and commutation of pension and to release other retiral dues with reasonable rate of interest on delayed payment and also to award exemplary cost. 3. The short facts are as under: 3.1. The petitioner had joined the service as a Reader with NO.5 University on 6.10.1988 after due process of selection, in response to an advertisement. Prior thereto, the petitioner was in the service of the South Gujarat University as a Reader for the period from 31.3.1986 to 5.10.1988 and even before that, the petitioner had served as a lecturer at S.V.R. College of Engineering and Technology, Surat from 4.12.1975 to 31.3.1986 and earlier appointment of the petitioner was with B.V.M. Engineering College at Vallabh Vidyanagar, on the post of Assistance Lecturer from 22.7.1968 and was their uptil 3.12.1975. Thus, the petitioner has rendered his services in various educational institutions as a teaching staff from 22.7.1968 till permitted to retire voluntarily from the post of Reader on 30.11.2000 with NO.5 University. 3.2. The petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement and sought permission of NO.5 on 3.8.2000 on completion of 32 years of total service in various educational institutions. The above application of seeking permission for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.11.2000 was forwarded by NO.5 - University to the Commissioner of Higher Education - NO.4 herein and as per procedure, a certificate is to be issued by the Director of Pension and Provident Fund - NO.1 herein with regard to pensionable service of the concerned officer, after verifying the original service book of the petitioner. By a letter dated 8.11.2000, a certificate was issued to the effect that petitioner had completed pensionable qualifying service of more than 25 years and upon the above certificate after careful scrutiny by Commissioner of Higher Education - NO.4 herein, by order dated 4.12.2000 sanctioned the voluntary retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.11.2000 and consequential order came to be passed from NO.5 - University on 2.3.2001. 3.3. Therefore, by the end of the year 2000, after following all relevant procedure as required under Rules, the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily after considering completion of 25 years of qualifying pensionable service based on verification of service book and other relevant records of the petitioner. 3.4. It is to be submitted that so far as NO.5 - University is concerned, it is all supportive of the petitioner for receiving pension and accordingly from time to time the University has entered into correspondence with either NO.1 or NO.4 to release retiral dues of the petitioner. 3.5. From the record it appears that certain objections were raised by NO.1 on 4.8.2001 about non-exercise of option by the petitioner for pension at relevant point of time, on the basis of certain clauses of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 by which pension scheme was made applicable to the teaching staff of the Universities by the State of Gujarat w.e.f. 1.4.1982. 3.6. As per NO.1, the petitioner cannot be given retiral dues in view of non-exercise of option for pension, though mandatory to do so within a period of one year from the date of issue of the above Government Resolution either to continue in Contributory Provident Fund or to come under the scheme of Government Resolution and option as exercised shall be final. If any member of the staff do not exercise option within stipulated period as above, shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the pension admissible to them before 1.4.1982. 3.7. This was the main objection of NO.1. However, it was replied by the petitioner to No.1 that the provision of exercising option as per above Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 is not applicable to a person joining the service on and after 1.4.1982 in view of Clause 4 of the above Government Resolution which specifically provided that the member of the staff recruited on or after 1982 shall automatically be governed by this scheme. Such staff will not be allowed to opt for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. As per Clause 6 of the above Government Resolution, all previous services rendered by a person was to be considered as qualifying service for pension and, therefore, the objection of NO.1, according to the petitioner was not just and proper. Such staff will not be allowed to opt for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. As per Clause 6 of the above Government Resolution, all previous services rendered by a person was to be considered as qualifying service for pension and, therefore, the objection of NO.1, according to the petitioner was not just and proper. Even No.5 - University also made it clear from time to time that the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily on the basis of completion of 25 years of qualifying service of pension, by letters dated 22.10.2001, 18.3.2005, 22.3.2007, that the petitioner is eligible for pension, gratuity and other retiral dues but no heed was paid and ultimately the petitioner is constrained to file this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Shri Paresh Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the issue involved in this petition with regard to interpretation of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 issued by the Education Department of State of Gujarat pertaining to pension scheme for the teaching staff in the Non-Government Affiliated Colleges and the Universities is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Court in case of Dr. Nalini V. Dave vs. Government of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2005 (3) GLR 1844 and another decision of learned Single Judge dated 17.3.2006 in Special Civil Application NO.12620/2003, where similarly situated employees of the College/University were directed to be paid pension and other retiral dues by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction and, therefore, petitioner also deserves equal treatment by this Court in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4.1. Learned advocate next contended that, it is clear from bare reading of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 that pension scheme for the full time teaching staff of the Universities under the Education Department of the State of Gujarat came to be framed after careful consideration by the authority that pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits admissible to the Gujarat State Government Servants under the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 as amended from time to time including the family pension etc. be made applicable as per clauses contained in this Government Resolution. be made applicable as per clauses contained in this Government Resolution. According to learned advocate for the petitioner as per Clause 3 of the above Government Resolution, option was to be exercised only by the members of the existing staff recruited before 1.4.1982 and those staff who have retired on or after 1.4.1982 and prior to the date of issue of this resolution namely 15.10.1984 within period of one year from the date of the issue of the Government resolution either to continue in C.P.F. Scheme or to opt for this pension scheme and such option for the above class of people once exercised shall remain final and in case if option is not exercised within stipulated period, it was considered that employee wanted to retain the C.P.F. scheme or the benefit admissible to him prior to 1.4.1982. 4.2. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, it is more clear from reading of clause 4 of the above Government resolution which clearly provides that a member of the staff recruited on or after 1st April, 1982 shall automatically be governed by the scheme under Government Resolution and such member will not be allowed to opt for C.P.F. Scheme. Even as per Clause 6 qualifying service for pension under this scheme of Government Resolution, all previous service whether temporary or officiating or permanent in one or more than Non-Government Aided Colleges, University, Department, Higher Secondary School receiving grant-in-aid shall be taken into account and, therefore, all previous service of the petitioner, prior to joining with NO.5 - University i.e. 6.10.1988 irrespective of nature of such educational establishment whether it was pensionable or not, such services will have to be counted and considered for pension purposes. It is further submitted that the provisions of Chapter XI of B.C.S.R. Rules, Volume I will be applicable in the matter of grant of retiral benefits except where otherwise provided and, therefore, according to Shri Upadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioner when there is a specific provision as specified in the clauses of Government Resolution of 15.10.1984 and subject to such provisions Chapter XI of B.C.S.R. will be applicable. 4.3. 4.3. In view of the above, any objection by any authority, according to learned advocate for the petitioner is unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, colorable exercise of power and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be set right by this Court particularly, when the pension is held akin to right of property and not bounty as per various decisions of the Apex Court reported in 1971 (2) SCC 330 , AIR 1992 SC 767 and 2008 (3) SCC 44 , for delay in making payment of retiral dues, the Nos. 1 and 4 may be saddled with heavy cost as laid down by the Apex Court in 2005 (6) SCC 344 and reasonable rate of interest be awarded to the petitioner by allowing the petition. 5. Shri S.P. Hasurkar, learned AGP for s vehemently contended that service of the petitioner prior to 1.4.1986 was not a pensionable service rendered in a pensionable establishment as per Rule 41(1) (a) of B.C.S.R., and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for pension, gratuity and other retiral dues as claimed. 6. According to learned AGP, before joining as a Reader with No.5 - University on 6.10.1988, the petitioner was serving as a Reader with Vir Narmad University for the period from 1.4.1986 to 5.10.1988 and contribution was only towards General Provident Fund as deducted by the employer. Therefore, at the most the petitioner may get retiral dues from the above date and the total period from 31.3.1986 to 30.11.2000 i.e. 14 years and 7 months is qualifying pensionable service and service prior to 31.3.1986 i.e. from initial date of joining the service on 22.7.1968 till 31.3.1986 i.e. for about 17 years and 7 months, no benefits can be given for the above service to the petitioner, since it was rendered in non-pensionable establishment. Learned AGP has gone to the extent of making submissions that earlier orders passed by the officer of Nos. 1 and 4 of issuance of certificate of completion of 25 years of pensionable service by the petitioner and permission to retire voluntarily were wrong and the petitioner ought not to have been permitted to retire voluntarily. 7. Learned AGP has heavily relied on various affidavits filed by Nos. 1 and 4 of issuance of certificate of completion of 25 years of pensionable service by the petitioner and permission to retire voluntarily were wrong and the petitioner ought not to have been permitted to retire voluntarily. 7. Learned AGP has heavily relied on various affidavits filed by Nos. 1 and 4 and submitted that considering the service history of the petitioner, the service rendered by the petitioner from 4.12.1975 to 31.3.1986 as a lecturer with S.V.R.College of Engineering and Technology, Surat, the above period of service is not rendered in pensionable establishment inasmuch as the petitioner had opted for C.P.F. and collected the amount, so is the case with earlier establishment of B.V.M. Engineering College for a period from 22.7.1968 to 3.12.75 is also not to be considered for pension since no option was exercised by the petitioner. When the petitioner joined the South Gujarat University on 31.3.1986, Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 was already issued for pension scheme and, again no option was exercised, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. It is further contended by learned AGP that benefits of Clause 6 of G.R. dated 15.10.1984 is available only in case if option is exercised as per Clause 3. 8. In the light of the above, learned AGP contends that it was mandatory on the part of the petitioner to exercise option as provided in Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 and by not exercising such an option and even by a later stage when further opportunities were given to the petitioner in the year 1987 and 1991 on the basis of relevant resolutions, no such option was exercised and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be given any benefits of retiral dues. 8.1. With regard to grant of pension and other retiral dues to similarly situated persons, it is submitted by learned AGP that the petitioner is not discriminated and other two employees i.e. Shri Tandel and Shri Oza, who opted for C.P.F. were not granted retiral dues, while Shri Mehta who opted for pension at the relevant point of time was given retiral dues. Therefore in overall submissions of learned AGP no case is made out by the petitioner for claim put forth by him. 8.2. Learned AGP further submits that the ratio laid down by the decision in the case of Dr. Nalini Dave (Supra) and Dr. Therefore in overall submissions of learned AGP no case is made out by the petitioner for claim put forth by him. 8.2. Learned AGP further submits that the ratio laid down by the decision in the case of Dr. Nalini Dave (Supra) and Dr. S.G. Trivedi (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case and alternatively Rule 41 (1) (a) of B.C.S.R. was not considered by the learned Single Judges of this Court in the above two decisions and, therefore, the facts of the present case can be distinguished. 8.3. That learned AGP has relied on the decision in the case of Visitor, Amu & Ors. vs. K.S.Misra reported in 2007 (8) SCC 593 in support of his submissions that benefits of pension cannot be given unless an option is exercised by the employee. 9. In rejoinder Shri Upadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the amount of contribution with regard to service in B.V.M. Engineering College of Rs. 58,304/-was deposited on 27.3.2000 and other amount of Rs. 95,440/-of C.P.F. and Rs. 15,000/-of gratuity for the service period with S.V.R. College of Engineering and Technology was deposited on 18.4.2000 and reiterated that there is no justification for denial of retiral dues in view of no mandatory provisions which necessitated exercising option by the petitioner for pension scheme in view of direct recruitment on the post of Reader with No.5 - University after undergoing valid selection procedure on 6.10.1988 is admittedly after 1.4.1982 and, therefore, denial by the s of retiral dues is illegal. 10. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Clause 4 and 6 of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 are amply clear and pension scheme made applicable by this Government Resolution is a specific provision made for the full time teaching staff of the College/Universities and all previous services prior to 1.4.1982 rendered by member of the staff is to be considered and counted for pension purpose and particularly a certificate dated 8.11.2000 issued by No.1 and order dated 4.12.2000 passed by NO.4 with regard to qualifying pensionable service of 25 years, stand as legal and valid as on date, submissions of learned AGP with regard to illegal exercise of power by the above two authorities on earlier occasion cannot be accepted simply for the reason that on the basis of the above orders, the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily and acted as per the just, legal and valid decisions of the authorities and after 8 years the authorities i.e. Nos. 1 and 4 cannot be permitted to back track solely with a view to deny retirement benefits to the petitioner. 10.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that as per the record produced by the petitioner along with affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by him on 21.1.2008 pertaining to the information received by the petitioner under the Information Act, after decision of 2000 of sanctioning voluntary retirement of the petitioner, on 2.6.2001, 12.11.2001, 3.7.2002 and 10.1.2003 office of the NO.4 namely Commissioner of Higher Education had forwarded necessary documents and informations in support of claim of the petitioner to NO.1 Therefore, according to learned advocate for the petitioner, the s are now estopped from raising any objection for prayer / relief claimed in this petition on the ground of final decision being not in accordance with the record of the service rendered by the petitioner. 11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, on perusal of the record including various affidavits and rejoinders filed by the parties, relevant Rules and Government Resolutions, I am of the opinion that contentions raised by learned advocate for the petitioners deserve acceptance by this Court. 12. 11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, on perusal of the record including various affidavits and rejoinders filed by the parties, relevant Rules and Government Resolutions, I am of the opinion that contentions raised by learned advocate for the petitioners deserve acceptance by this Court. 12. At the same time, what transpires from the submissions of the advocates appearing for the respective parties, is the interpretation of Government Resolution dated 15th October, 1984 and to appreciate the said contentions, it is necessary to reproduce relevant clauses of the G.R. dated 15.10.1984 which reads as under : "The question of application of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the members of teaching staff of the University under Education Department and in affiliated and aided non-Government colleges in Gujarat was under consideration of the Government for some time past. After careful consideration, Government is now pleased to direct that the pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits admissible to the Gujarat State Govt. Servants under the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 contained in the Appendix XIV - C to BCSR Rules, Volumes II, as amended from time to time, the family pensions scheme sanctioned in Government Resolution, Finance Department No.FPS - 1071 - J dated 1.1.72 as amended from time to time should be made applicable to the full time teaching staff of the universities under the Education Department and in affiliated and aided non - Government Arts, Science, Commerce and Education Colleges in this State with effect from 1.4.1982. "1. (a) for the purpose of this scheme. 1. University means universities under Education Department established by the Acts. 2. A non-Government College includes non-Government affiliated Arts, Science, Commerce and B.Ed. Colleges receiving grant-in-aid and managed by the private body and affiliated with the universities by the competent authority. (b) for the purpose of pensionable pay, pay means and includes: 1. pay in the approved prescribed scale of pay, 2. additional pay for additional academic and professional qualification admissible under the orders issued by Government from time to time, 3. personal pay granted to save from less to pay due to revision of pay scale or due to pay fixation. pay in the approved prescribed scale of pay, 2. additional pay for additional academic and professional qualification admissible under the orders issued by Government from time to time, 3. personal pay granted to save from less to pay due to revision of pay scale or due to pay fixation. Note:- If a member of staff during the last three years of his service has been absent from duty on leave with allowances, his pay for that period should be taken what it would have been, had he been on duty at any time during the first six months of period of leave. Provided that the benefits of higher officiating or temporary pay should be given only if it is certified that member of the staff concerned would have continued to hold the higher officiating or temporary appointment but for his proceeding on leave. (c) Teaching staff means a full time professor, Asstt. Professor, reader, lecturers in universities and Principal, Lecturer, Tutor, demonstrator and also physical training instructors, Librarians etc. working in non-Government aided colleges who are receiving university Grants Commission scales. 2. The Director of Higher Education or the officer authorised by him shall be competent authority to sanction pension, gratuity, family pension and other retirement benefits admissible under the scheme. 3. (i) Members of the existing staff recruited before 1.4.1982 and those staff who have retired on or after 1.4.1982 and prior to the date of issue of this resolution should exercise their option within the period of one year from the date of issue of this resolution either to continue in contributory provident Fund scheme or to come under this scheme. The option once exercised shall be final. The option should be exercised in writing in the form prescribed (appendix-A) and communicated to the Director of Higher Education. The members of the staff who do not exercise the option within stipulated period shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the benefit admissible to them before 1.4.1982. Where a member of the staff who was entitled to exercise an option in accordance with this Resolution died on any date on or from 1.4.1982 and on or before expiry of the date before which he had to exercise option without exercising it, his family may be given the benefit of these rules or may be allowed the benefit or CPF scheme, whichever is more favourable to them. The pension sanctioning authority should work out the benefits admissible under both alternatives (i.e. the CPF and the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 as admissible under this Government resolution) after taking into account the quantum of CPF as well as family pension and prepare pension paper accordingly with necessary sanctions. (ii) The member of the staff who have opted for the pension scheme shall join GPF scheme concurrently as in the case of Government employees and their share in the GPF together with interest thereon shall be credited to their GPF account. The general provident fund shall be kept with Government and on retirement, the amount shall be paid to them in accordance with the rules. (iii) The amount of contribution paid by the University or management of Non-Government aided colleges and institutions mentioned in para 6 of this resolution together with interest thereon standing at the credit of the member of teaching staff opting for pension scheme, after they exercise their option for pension scheme should be credited to the State Government within a period of two months under the head of account "XLVIII contribution and Recoveries towards pension and other retirement benefit" after the correctness of amount is verified and certified by the Director of Higher Education. (iv) Where the members of staff eligible for the scheme have retired/resigned after 1.4.1982 to the date of issue of this Government Resolution and who have received their CPF amount including the management or University contribution and Government's share together with the interest thereon desires to opt pension scheme as admissible under this Government Resolution should execute undertaking as in Appendix 'B' alongwith an option as provided under this scheme. In such cases the amount received on account of Universities Managements contribution, Government's share and interest earned thereon by the member shall be adjusted against the arrears of pension and amount of D.C.R.G. Admissible under this scheme. If the amount so received exceeds the amount of arrears pension/DCRG payable to him, the balance amount shall be paid by him immediately in the Government Treasury. 4. The member of the staff recruited on or after 1st April, 1982 shall automatically be governed by this scheme. Such staff will not be allowed to opt for contributory provident fund scheme. 5. 4. The member of the staff recruited on or after 1st April, 1982 shall automatically be governed by this scheme. Such staff will not be allowed to opt for contributory provident fund scheme. 5. The members of teaching staff who have completed five years of continuous service will be treated as holding permanent post substantively for the purpose of this scheme. 6. In computing the length of qualifying service for pension under this scheme, all previous service whether temporary officiating or permanent either in one or more than one non-Government aided colleges, Universities Department, Higher Secondary School who are being paid Grant-in-aid from Government shall be taken into account. The period of break in service will not be considered as qualifying service i.e. actual service rendered will be considered as qualifying services. 7. The general provisions of chapter XI of BCSR Rules Vol.I will be applicable in granting retirement benefits to the member of the staff under this scheme except where otherwise provided. 8. 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 recruited on and from 1.10.1984 shall be 58 years for which universities should be requested to take necessary action to amend the relevant statutes, Rules Regulations accordingly." 12.1. The above Government Resolution introduced pension scheme for the teaching staff in the non-Government affiliated Colleges and in the Universities on par with retirement benefits admissible to the employees of the Gujarat State Government Servants with regard to Pension, Gratuity etc. under the revised pension Rules, 1950 including the family pension as amended from time to time. Rule 41 (1) (a) of B.C.S.R. relied by the learned AGP reads as under: "41.(1) In respect of persons retiring on or after 1st April, 1966, qualifying service means and includes:- (i) all services rendered on a regular establishment in any capacity whether temporary, or permanent interrupted or continuous but it shall not include - (a) service on non-pensionable establishment. ........" 13. ........" 13. That other Government Resolution dated 17.12.1987 relied on by learned AGP is pertaining to pension scheme for the teaching and non-teaching staff in the Non-Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics and another Government Resolution dated 17.9.1991 about raising limit of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the employees of the Universities and Colleges which also have similar clauses like Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 and provided an opportunity of exercising option by the employees of the Colleges/Universities for getting benefit of pension of D.C.R.G. 14. That undisputed service history of the petitioner is produced in affidavit dated 29.1.2008 filed by Director of Pension and Provident Fund, State of Gujarat which reads as under: "5. The Pension Scheme for teaching staff in the non-Government affiliated Colleges in the Universities was introduced by the state after passing a resolution in its Education Department dated 15.10.1984. (Since the petitioner has already appended the same along with his memo of Special Civil Application from Page No.16 to 24, I am not annexing the same.) Perusing the said resolution, it would be very clear that the same is made effective from 1.4.1982 and was applicable to Affiliated Aid Non-Government Arts, Science, Commerce and Education Colleges in the State, however, the same was not applicable to affiliated Engineering Colleges to various Universities in the State. The service history of the petitioner can be summarised in tabular manner as follows : Sr. No. Period Position Held Name of University 1. 22.7.1968 to 3.12.1975 Asst. Lecturer B.V.M. Engg. College, Vallabh Vidyanagar 2. 4.12.1975 to 31.3.1986 (B.N.) Lecturer S.V.R. College of Engg. & Technology, Surat. 3. 31.3.1986 to 5.10.1988 Reader South Gujarat University 4. 6.10.1988 to 30.11.2000 Reader M.S. University, Vadodara The above service is without any break. 15. Thus, what is admitted position about service history of the petitioner is that from 22.7.1968 to 3.12.1975 when the petitioner was serving as a Assistant Lecturer with B.V.M. College of Engineering, Vallabh Vidhyanagar and thereafter from 4.12.1975 to 31.3.1986 as a Lecturer with S.V.R. College of Engineering and Technology, Surat, the petitioner was not governed by any pension scheme and was having C.P.F. and accordingly Contributed Provident Fund was credited in account of the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner had collected the amount. 16. 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 s, 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 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 Non-Government 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. 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 Non-Government 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 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 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 non-pensionable 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 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 s No. 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 s 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 s No.1 and 4. 16.6. The petitioner has relied and acted on the orders passed by s 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 s 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. 17. Thus, non-consideration of above aspect by learned Single Judge of this Court in decision of Dr. Nalini V. Dave (supra) also fails. 18. The two decisions relied on by learned advocate for the petitioner, are clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case in as much as, in the case of Dr. Nalini V. Dave (supra), learned Single Judge after considering similar facts and circumstances when the petitioner was denied the benefits of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 and past services were not considered. Paras 9 and 10 is observed as under: "9. It appears that the peculiar aspects and special circumstances obtainable in the present case are, also, not seriously considered and properly examined and appreciated by No.3 - University. The question of exercise of option could be raised when there is something to be opted for out of more than one options. In the present case, so far as the first spell of 19 years of actual service in the College for the period 15.6.1966 to 8.7.1985, as a Lecturer is concerned, admittedly, it had only one Scheme and that too, C.P.F. There was, therefore, no question of exercising any option. Likewise, during the period of service from 8.7.1985 till the date of Voluntary Retirement on 31.12.2000 in the Department of Commerce of No.3-Unviersity, there was, also, compulsory scheme of pension. There, also, there was no question of exercising any option, particularly, when compulsory scheme was in existence. 10. Likewise, during the period of service from 8.7.1985 till the date of Voluntary Retirement on 31.12.2000 in the Department of Commerce of No.3-Unviersity, there was, also, compulsory scheme of pension. There, also, there was no question of exercising any option, particularly, when compulsory scheme was in existence. 10. It is in this context, it must be appreciated that there was no any fault or inaction or omission or commission on the part of the petitioner, which would disentitle the right to claim the pension, much less the dispute of raising the option Form, of late. Even assuming that there is a delay in exercise of the option, then also the available rights to pension, in this set of circumstances and special facts, cannot be allowed to thwart. Needless to reiterate that the Court is vitally concerned and the main anxiety of the process of the decision - making and judicial adjudication has been to do justice and to undo injustice suffered, and thereby, render substantive justice, which cannot be eclipsed by a processual or technical objection. Delay in such a fact situational reality could never tantamount to a defeating factor against the entitlement of right to pension. It is a celebrated proposition of law that in such circumstances and in such special factual realistic profile, the expiry of time, specified in the Resolution or delay in submission of the Option Form, cannot defeat the Liberalised Scheme of Pension". 18.1. Then the learned Single Judge relied on two decisions of the Apex Court reported in Union of India & Ors. v. D.R.R. Sastri 1997 (1) SCC 514 and after lamenting the bureaucratic approach and dogmatic perception and delaying tactics, all s were directed finalisation of process of the pension of the petitioner with 9% interest till its actually paid and in another case i.e. Special Civil Application No.12620/2003 dated 17.3.2006, where the Government of Gujarat had challenged the decision of the Gujarat University Services Tribunal rendered on 29.3.2003 in Application No.18/2002 by which benefits of G.R. dated 15.10.1984 was conferred upon the employee on the ground that non-exercising of option by a recruitee after 1.4.1982 was not vital or in any manner defeating the benefits of pensionary benefits came to be confirmed by learned Single Judge after placing reliance on Dr. Nalini V. Dave (supra). 18.2. Nalini V. Dave (supra). 18.2. While confirming the order of the Tribunal in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 following observations were made. "9. Having considered rival submissions it would appear that the crucial question is whether no.1 can be stated to have joined services of the University on 01-10-1984 or right from the time he was discharged from his duties in private affiliated aided college. If it is found that no.1 joined services of South Gujarat University only on 01-10-1984 and the earlier services of no.1 cannot be said to have any bearing on question of applicability of the 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 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, 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 no.1. 10. There is however, considerable force in the submissions made by the learned advocate Shri Joshi that under identical situation, Learned Single Judge of this Court had made pensionary benefits available to the teacher in the case of Dr. Nalini V. Dave v. Government of Gujarat & Ors. (Supra). 11. In the said case also the petitioner had discharged duties in various colleges right from 1966 to 08-07-1985 when after getting relived from the private college, she joined as a Lecturer in the Department of Commerce in Saurashtra University on the very same date. In the said case also her earlier service came to be considered continuous for the purpose of her total length of service including pensionary benefits. Accordingly the entire service was considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Despite this factual aspect, Learned Single Judge of this Court found that Government Resolution cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the petitioner therein would be disentitled from receiving pension for not having exercised option. It was held that having joined the service in University on 08-07-1985, she would be governed by pension scheme as per Government Resolution dated 15-10-1984. It was held that having joined the service in University on 08-07-1985, she would be governed by pension scheme as per Government Resolution dated 15-10-1984. Non-exercising of the option therefore, was not taken as a factor to disentitle her from receiving pensionary benefits. 12. The ratio laid down in case of Dr. Nalini V. Dave v. Government of Gujarat & Ors. (Supra) would squarely apply in the present case also. The no.1 herein had discharged duties in private colleges from 1966 to 01-10-1984. Having resigned from his services he immediately joined as Reader in South Gujarat University on 01-10-1984. Thus on 01-10-1984 when he joined University Services only option available to him was to be governed by the pension scheme as held by this Court in the case of Dr. Nalini V. Dave v. Government of Gujarat & Ors. (Supra). He therefore, had no option to exercise. His misconceived communication dated 10-10-1985 therefore, cannot be taken to be the factor against him to deny the pensionary benefits. If it is found as has been so in case of Dr. Nalini V. Dave v. Government of Gujarat & Ors. (Supra) that for such of the teachers who joined services after 01-04-1982 even with past background of employment in private colleges, option of continuing in CPF Scheme was not in existence and that pension scheme applied compulsorily and automatically, the assertion of the no.1 that he wishes to continue in the CPF Scheme would be of no consequence. The factor that the employer stopped contributing towards Provident Fund of the no.1 is one more indication of the stand of the University". Therefore, both the above decisions, support the case of the petitioner on hand and in addition to the above, a fortiorari, when the service of the petitioner was considered as pensionable and permitted to retire by s No. 1 and 2, I am in total agreement with law laid down by this Court as above, and hold the petitioner entitled to receive retiral dues on the basis of voluntary retirement granted by s No.1 and 4 w.e.f. 30.11.2000. 18.3. The reliance placed by learned AGP on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Visitor, Amu & Ors. 18.3. The reliance placed by learned AGP on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Visitor, Amu & Ors. vs. K.S.Misra reported in (2007) 8 SCC 593 , cannot be made applicable in view of the fact that in the above cases provisions of Statutes 61(6)(iv)(b) and (c) provided mandatory exercise on the part of an employee to give an option and in that view of the case, the Apex Court held that it was obligatory on the part of an employee to exercise an option and facts of the case of the petitioner on hand with regard to clauses 3, 4, 6 and 7 are seen, Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 as discussed earlier, no such compulsion arise but on the contrary, an employee who is recruited after 1.4.1982 is automatically governed for receiving benefits of pension scheme. 18.4. In view of the two decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr.Nalini V. Dave vs. Government of Gujarat & Ors. and State of Gujarat vs. Dr. S.G. Trivedi, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioner herein is also governed by the similar set of facts and circumstances of the case and denial of pension and other benefits to the petitioner in spite of the fact that qualifying services of 25 years was certified by NO.1 and voluntary retirement came to be granted by No.4 is nothing but unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal exercise on the part of the Nos. 1 and 4 in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and, therefore, it is a fit case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue suitable direction to the s for releasing retiral dues of the petitioner with reasonable rate of interest. 18.5. Thus, cumulative effect of all the above facts, provisions of G.R. dated 15.10.1984 and relevant rules is that the objection raised by Nos. 18.5. Thus, cumulative effect of all the above facts, provisions of G.R. dated 15.10.1984 and relevant rules is that the objection raised by Nos. 1 and 4 with regard to entitlement of petitioner to receive retiral dues including pension and gratuity is not justified and based on any rational and valid legal grounds and, being arbitrary and unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the same is hereby quashed and set aside and declare that the petitioner is entitled to receive the retiral dues on the basis of acceptance of application for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.11.2000 with all other consequential benefits as directed hereinafter. Order accordingly. 19. That reliance is placed by Shri Upadhyay on the decisions of the Apex Court with regard to awarding interest on the outstanding retiral dues, reported in AIR 1971 SC 330 , AIR 1992 SC 767 , 2008 (3) SCC 44 and 2005 (6) SCC 344 and for cost of the litigation and for disobedience to the decisions of this Court, viz. Dr. Nalini V. Dave vs. Government of Gujarat & Ors. and State of Gujarat vs. Dr. S.G. Trivedi (supra), reliance was placed on 1982 Vol. I GLR 61 in case of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan & Anr. v. United India Insurance Col Ltd. & Ors. for contempt committed by the s. 20. I am of the opinion that the petitioner herein has persuaded representations relentlessly as supported by No.5 - University and even till 2003 as disclosed under Information Act, recommended by No.4 to release pension and other retiral dues, approached this Court after exhausting all remedies and persuasion, filed this petition in the year 2007 cannot be said to be responsible for delay in any manner and, therefore, delay is completely attributable to the s No.1 to 4 and they are hereby directed to finalise and fix pension and other retiral dues and release the amount towards retiral dues as payable to the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn, from the date of acceptance of voluntary retirement till its realisation with 9% interest within six weeks from today. 21. 21. The collective efforts are made by s NO.1 and 4 for denying and delaying retiral dues to the petitioner in spite of two decisions of this Court on identical issues and subject matter clearly attract law laid down by this Court in 1982(1) GLR 61 and arguments advance by learned AGP that the case on hand can be distinguished on the ground that in earlier cases applicability of Rule 41(1) (a) of B.C.S.R. was not considered, cannot be a ground as discussed earlier and such exercise of distinguishing facts of this case with earlier cases is nothing but hairsplitting exercise, solely with a view to deprive the petitioner of a claim which was already accepted and recommended by NO.4 uptil 2003 and only when it was realised that denial of benefits may entail interest as well as cost, the stand is taken to justify denial and objection to the claim of pension and retiral dues of the petitioner on flimsy and nebulous grounds. 22. Considering the above aspect, however, I do not think it just and proper to refer this matter to the Bench taking up contempt matters even though conduct of s No.1 and 4 deserves condemnation. 23. However, by considering the various decisions including 2005 (6) SCC 344 in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association T.N. vs. Union of India and Section 35 of Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the opinion that the counsel's fees and cost are quantified to Rs. 25,000/- and cost is to be born by S. No. 1 to 4 accordingly. 24. Rule is made absolute. Rule made absolute.