Judgment A.S. Bopanna, J. The appellant herein is the first respondent in W.P.No.17707/2008 (S-R). The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein assailing the notice dated 01-12-2008 which was issued by the Managing Director of the appellant. By the said notice, the first respondent was intimated that he would retire from the services of appellant on 31-12-2008 on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years. The case of the first respondent is that he is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years since the said age is applicable to the appellant on enhancement of the same by the Government. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions, has allowed the writ petition and has held that the first respondent is entitled to continue upto 60 years. The appellant therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 23-03-2009 of the learned Single Judge is before this court in this intra-Court appeal. 2. Heard Sri.P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri. Narayana Bhat, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Sri. D. Vijayakumar, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent. 3. the learned Senior Counsel while assailing the order of the learned Single Judge contended that the Government order dated 28.07.2008 relied on by the first respondent is not applicable to the appellant since it is guided by its own Cadre and Recruitment Rules and Regulation 21 provides regarding superannuation, which is fixed at 58 years. The Government Order relied on by the first respondent is applicable only to the aided educational institution. Firstly, the appellant is not an educational institution. It is not an aided institution. Reference is made to Section 87 of the Karnataka Education Act (‘Act’ for Short) and contended that parity would arise only if maintenance grant is received from the Government. Though the appellant had been provided with funds by the Government, the same is not as maintenance grant. The Grant-in-Aid Code is pointed out to state that under Rule 13, teaching grant alone is maintenance grant. On the other hand, when activity of the appellant is different, such as making of tools and dyes, there is business also and as such merely teaching for diploma does not mean it is an educational institution as defined Section 2(14) of the Act. On the other hand, when activity of the appellant is different, such as making of tools and dyes, there is business also and as such merely teaching for diploma does not mean it is an educational institution as defined Section 2(14) of the Act. In his reply arguments also, the learned Senior counsel emphasised on that aspect and contended that every aid would be grant but every grant is not a maintenance grant. In such circumstance, the Government has no power to issue direction. Several decisions were also cited, which would be referred at the appropriate state depending on its relevance. 4. The learned Counsel for the first respondent sought to justify the order of the learned Single Judge. The memorandum of association of the appellant is referred to and it is contended that the learned Single Judge has appropriately taken note of the same. Certificate course are being imparted by the appellant and in that regard, approval is obtained from the All India Council for Technical Education (‘AICTE’ for short) and the Vishweshwaraiah Technological University (VTU). Section 2(18) of the Act defines grant to be any sum of money paid as aid out of state funds to any educational institution. The appellants have admitted that it is an educational institution in their objection statement filed to the writ petition. What is imparted is technical education, which falls within Section 2(37) of the Act. The learned Counsel has referred to Regulation 31(a) of the Rules and Regulations of the appellant to contend that they are bound by Government directions. It is also pointed out that in the very 102nd meeting to which the learned Senior Counsel referred to point out that enhancement of retirement age was not agreed, would also indicate that CR & CCSR Rules of the appellant had not been approved by the Government. Therefore, it is contended when there is sufficient material to show that it is an educational institution to which Government makes grant, the learned Single Judge was justified and the order does not call for interference. 5. The learned Government Advocate has however supported the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 6. In the above background, the facts to be noticed are that the first respondent was working as the General Manager (HRM) in the appellant, namely. Government Tool Room and Training Centre, Rajajinagar Industrial Area, Bangalore. 5. The learned Government Advocate has however supported the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 6. In the above background, the facts to be noticed are that the first respondent was working as the General Manager (HRM) in the appellant, namely. Government Tool Room and Training Centre, Rajajinagar Industrial Area, Bangalore. The appellant is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The age of superannuation in the appellant is 58 years as was prevalent even in Government service. It is in that context, the first respondent was due to retire with effect from 30.12.2008. In the meanwhile, the age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60 years in respect of Government service. It was also made applicable to several other bodies which had Government participation. In the said situation, a Government order dated 28.7.2008 as at Annexure-B was issued. The order also indicated that the said enhancement of age would be applicable to employees of local bodies and aided educational institutions. Since according to the first respondent, the appellant is wholly sponsored, controlled and owned by Government of Karnataka, the said Government order is contended to be applicable. The first respondent therefore claims right to continue till the age of 60 years. The appellant claiming that it is not applicable has sought to superannuate the first respondent on attaining the age of 58 years and as such the notice dated 01.12.2008 was issued. The Learned Single Judge has quashed the said notice, which enabled the first respondent to continue beyond 58 years. However, by order dated 20.07.2009 in this appeal, the said order was stayed on taking note of the undertaking of the appellant herein that all monetary benefits would be paid if the appellant fails in this appeal. Hence, at this juncture the superannuation has been given effect which in fact would be subject to result of this appeal. 7. In the above backdrop, since the very same contentions were urged before the learned Single Judge also and this being intra-Court appeal, it would be appropriate to notice the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In this regard, the issue would be as to whether the appellant is an aided educational institution and in fact, the learned Single Judge has also proceeded on that basis. In this regard, the issue would be as to whether the appellant is an aided educational institution and in fact, the learned Single Judge has also proceeded on that basis. To consider as to whether the training imparted by the appellant would constitute ‘education’, reference is made to the Law Lexicon and also to the view expressed by the Division Bench in the case of B.K. Raghu Vs. Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (ILR 2009 Kar 206). The learned Senior Counsel however vehemently contended that reliance could not have been placed on the said decision. We have perused the said decision. Even though the same was rendered in a different set of facts, there is no error in noticing the same to gather as to what would constitute education, since the same was a contentious issue in the present petition in the context of nature of activity of the appellant as contended. 8. On noticing the same, reference is made to the memorandum of association of the appellant relating to the objects and the relevant portion has been extracted by the learned Single Judge. From the same, as rightly noticed, the object is to undertake works of research and development of new tools, materials and development work in the area of concerned interest. The said objects of the institute in the background of the ingredients of education as noticed in the light of the decision noticed above would make it an educational institution. 9. In furtherance to the above, the communication dated 26.5.2008 (Annexure-L from the AICTE would indicate that extension of approval is granted to the appellant for the Diploma Programme in Engineering and Technology in different, disciplines such as Diploma in Tool and Dye Making. Diploma in Manufacturing and Diploma in Mechatronics. The said approval relates to the approved intake of students, the duration of the course and the minimum educational qualification to be admitted to the said course. The fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the said communication granting such approval is addressed to the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Karnataka and copy of the same is marked to the Director/Principal of the appellant. The fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the said communication granting such approval is addressed to the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Karnataka and copy of the same is marked to the Director/Principal of the appellant. Such approval is for the purpose of regulating the technical education in technical institutions and the definitions contained in the AICTE Act would indicate that the requirement of approval as noticed is in view of the fact that the appellant falls within the definition of technical institution. These aspects have in fact been noticed in detail by the learned single Judge. 10. Further, as seen from the notification dated 03.6.2008 as at Annexure-M, VTU has granted affiliation to the appellant in respect of the M.Tech in Tool Engineering, indicating it as a college. With reference to the VTU, the learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant institute would answer the definition and also the provision for affiliation of such institutions. It is only after noticing these aspects of the matter; the observation made by the Division Bench with regard to education was kept in view by the learned Single Judge to arrive at his conclusion. The decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [(2007) 14 SCC 704] is relied on by the learned Senior Counsel to contend that the primary or predominant object of an institution is important. The same is rendered in the context of tax benefit to charitable institution in the facts arising therein and as such would not be of assistance since the object of the appellant herein has been noticed in the background of the question for consideration. Even if there is sale of tools and dyes, the same would not alter the situation since the end products during the course of training also can be sold. Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is an educational institution imparting technical education. 11. As noticed above, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that even if it is considered as an educational institution, it cannot be considered as an aided institution in view of the proviso to Section 87 of the Karnataka Education Act, since the appellant does not receive maintenance grant from the Government. 11. As noticed above, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that even if it is considered as an educational institution, it cannot be considered as an aided institution in view of the proviso to Section 87 of the Karnataka Education Act, since the appellant does not receive maintenance grant from the Government. In contrast, reference to paragraph 14 of the order of the learned Single Judge would disclose validity of two different sets of age of superannuation in respect of the different category of employees in the same organization. In the instant case, though the learned Senior Counsel had contended that the appellant institute is also undertaking sale of products, the fact of imparting education is now conclusive. In that view, the said decision would have been of assistance only if it was the admitted ease of the appellant that in view of two different functions being carried out, the age of superannuation has been differently prescribed in respect of the employees engaged for each of the categories viz. manufacturing unit and the educational institution respectively. Hence the said decisions are also not of assistance. 15. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit, we pass the following. ORDER i) The appeal in W.A.No.1786/2009 stands dismissed. ii) The appellant is directed to reinstate the first respondent into service within 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and continue him in service till he attains the age of superannuation at 60 years. iii) The appellant is directed to pay all the accrued benefits to the first respondent till the date of reinstatement as undertaken in this appeal and recorded by this Court in its order dated 20.07.2009. iv) Parties to bear their own costs.