JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - a retired employee of the Anand Agricultural University has prayed for the following reliefs:-- "20(A) to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature to quash and set aside the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent No. 1, refused verification of revised pay scale and further quash and set aside the letter dated 27-3-2002 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and direct the Respondent No. 1 to make verification of revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 immediately. (B) to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 2 to pay the arrears of revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 w.e.f. 1-1-1996 till the date of superannuation forthwith with 18% interest from 1-1-1996; (C) direct the respondent No. 2 to fix the pension of the petitioner in the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 and direct to pay the arrears w.e.f. 30-4-1999 with all consequential pensionary benefits, including commuted pension, gratuity and leave encashment etc.,; [C(a)] to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order of direction to quash and set aside the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents in deducting the amount of temporary increase, increased dearness allowance and interim relief from the monthly pension and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the amount of pension with all available allowances including the temporary increase, increased dearness allowances and interim relief every month regularly. [C(b)] to direct the present respondents to refund the entire amount deducted from the pension of the present petitioner towards the temporary increase, increased dearness allowance and interim relief, alongwith the 18% interest p.a. (D) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, to direct the respondent No. 1 to make verification of revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 granted under GAU (ROP) Rules 1998 forthwith and direct the respondent No. 2 to pay arrears immediately with 18% interest. (E) to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and just in the interest of justice." 2. 8000-13500 granted under GAU (ROP) Rules 1998 forthwith and direct the respondent No. 2 to pay arrears immediately with 18% interest. (E) to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and just in the interest of justice." 2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under:-- 2.1 The petitioner came to be appointed as a Legal Assistant (Class-II) on 27/04/1977 in the office of the Gujarat Agricultural University at the Sardar Krushinagar, Dantiwada in the pay-scale of Rs. 650-1200/- in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of the University. 2.2 Thereafter, the pay-scale of the employees of the University were revised under the GAU (ROP) Rules, 1987. The pay-scale of the Legal Assistant (Class-II) as revised was fixed at Rs. 2200-4000/- against the pay-scale of Rs. 650-1200/-. 2.3 In April, 1984, the University in exercise of its powers conferred under the provisions of Sub-section (12) of Section-7, created a new post of Legal Officer (Class-I) in the pay sale of Rs. 700-1300/-. This post was created by the Board of Management in its meeting held on 27/04/1984 and consequently, a Notification No. 6/84 dated 11/05/1984 was issued for that purpose. 2.4 By office order dated 12/09/1984, the petitioner was appointed/promoted as the Legal Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1300/- and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 940/- per month w.e.f. 13/09/1984. It is the case of the petitioner that from 13/09/1984 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30/04/1999 he worked as a Legal Officer (Class-I) in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. It is his case that at the relevant point of time, the verification of the said pay-scale at Rs. 2200-4000/- was made by the respondent No. 1- authority and no objection was raised in that regard. 2.5 In the year 1998, under the GAU (ROP) Rules, 1998, the pay-scales of all the employees of the University were again revised i.e. "scale to scale" and the effect of the same was given on 01/01/1996. The pay-scale of the Legal Officer (Class-I) was revised to Rs. 8000-13500/- w.e.f. 01/01/1996 against the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. 2.6 After a period of four years, by order dated 07/11/2001, the respondent No. 2 fixed the pay-scale of the petitioner in the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. The pay-scale of the Legal Officer (Class-I) was revised to Rs. 8000-13500/- w.e.f. 01/01/1996 against the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. 2.6 After a period of four years, by order dated 07/11/2001, the respondent No. 2 fixed the pay-scale of the petitioner in the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the University thereafter forwarded the documents to the respondent No. 1 for the verification of the pay fixation. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 without any authority of law refused the verification on the ground that the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1300 granted to the petitioner on 27/04/1984 as a Legal Officer was not sanctioned by the State Government. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Upadyay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that under the provisions of the GAU Act, the University has powers to create posts and fix appropriate pay-scale. According to Mr. Upadyay, it is not obligatory under the Statutes to obtain any sanction from the State Government for creation of the posts and for fixation of the pay-scale. According to him, even the Grant-in-Aid Rules do not require any sanction/approval of the State Government for creation of the posts and for fixation of the pay-scale. In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned order be quashed and appropriate directions be issued for fixation of pension. 4. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that the University used to receive grant and from the said grant, the salary of the petitioner was being paid all throughout. Accordingly to him, every year the accounts were audited and at no point of time any objection was raised as regards the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Legal Officer. 5. On the other-hand, this writ-application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Goutam, the learned AGP appearing for the State. He submitted that at no point of time, the University sought permission for the purpose of creation of the posts and fixation of the pay-scale attached to the said posts. He submitted that at no point of time, the University even bothered to inform about the same to the State Government. Goutam, the learned AGP appearing for the State. He submitted that at no point of time, the University sought permission for the purpose of creation of the posts and fixation of the pay-scale attached to the said posts. He submitted that at no point of time, the University even bothered to inform about the same to the State Government. According to the learned AGP, prior sanction in this regard is a must and if the University failed to obtain any such prior sanction, then the State Government cannot be fastened with the liability of paying pension. According to him, it is now for the University to fix the pension and pay to the petitioner. Mr. Goutam has placed reliance on the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Mr. Goutam, the learned AGP has also placed reliance on one additional affidavit-in-reply duly affirmed by one Smt. B.R. Thakkar, Under Secretary, Agricultural Department. 6. It appears that in the past, the petitioner had filed the Special Civil Application No. 8336 of 2008 complaining about the action of the respondents in deducting the amount of temporary increase and enhanced dearness allowance from the monthly pension. The said writ-application came to be disposed of by the judgment and order dated 17/11/2008, which reads as under:-- "1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the action of the respondents in deducting the amount of temporary increase and increased dearness allowance from the monthly pension and to direct the respondents to pay the amount of pension with all available allowances on the last drawn pay and further to refund the entire deducted amount along with 18% interest. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Legal Assistant (Class-II) in the pay-scale of Rs. 650 - Rs.1200 on 10.03.1977. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Legal Officer vide order dated 29.10.1984 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 940/- per month w.e.f. 13.09.1984. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.1999 in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 2200- Rs.4000. Thereafter, by Resolution dated 20.08.1999, the petitioner was engaged on honorarium basis at Rs. 5,000/- per month without any other benefits by the respondent University. 940/- per month w.e.f. 13.09.1984. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.1999 in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 2200- Rs.4000. Thereafter, by Resolution dated 20.08.1999, the petitioner was engaged on honorarium basis at Rs. 5,000/- per month without any other benefits by the respondent University. As the verification of the pay fixation in the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000- Rs.13,500 was not made, the pension of the petitioner was provisionally fixed at Rs. 1334/- on the basis of the unrevised pay scale of Rs. 2200- Rs.4000. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that up to March 2000, the respondents have paid regular pension on the unrevised pay scale of Rs. 2200- Rs.4000. However, from April 2000 to June 2001, the respondents had unilaterally started to deduct the amount of temporary increase of Rs. 10,136/- from the pension by relying upon the G.R. dated 10.11.1988. 4. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner addressed communication dated 22.03.2000 to the respondents stating that the respondent University is not entitled to recover any amount from the pension citing reasons. Thereafter, from June 2001 to October 2003, the respondents paid regular pension on the unrevised pay scale but, subsequently, from November 2003, the respondents started to make certain deductions from the pension of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The impugned action of the respondents is of the year 2000 and the present petition, challenging the said action of the respondents, has been filed only in the year 2008, i.e. after a delay of about eight years. 6. Considering the facts of the case, it would be beneficial to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1330, wherein, it has been held that the cause of action continues from month to month and that if the petition is filed beyond reasonable period, the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 S.C.C. 648 . 7. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 S.C.C. 648 . 7. Keeping in mind the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay itself. 8. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs." 7. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the rejection of the writ-application preferred a Letters Patent Appeal No. 103 of 2010 which came to be disposed of in the following terms:-- "1. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8336 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground of delay. 2. It is an admitted position that Special Civil Application No. 5958 of 2002 was pending at the time when the learned Single Judge decided the matter. 3. Under these circumstances, Mr. Upadyay, learned Counsel for the appellant, seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal, with a view to raise all contentions, including the deduction of any amount from pension, in Special Civil Application No. 5958 of 2002, which is still pending before the learned Single Judge. 4. Permission is granted. However, it is observed that the rights and contentions of both the sides in the said Special Civil Application, including the aspect for which SCA No. 8336 of 2008 was filed, shall remain open. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs." 8. Thus, by virtue of the order passed in Appeal, the petitioner amended the present petition and prayed for appropriate reliefs. 9. Mr. Upadyay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 02-03/09/2002 in the Special Civil Application No. 6131 of 1995. 10. It appears that the State of Gujarat being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge referred to above preferred a Letters Patent Appeal No. 194 of 2003, which came to be dismissed in the following terms:-- "This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Judge dated 2/3-9-2002 in Special Civil Application No. 6131 of 1995. Shri Bipinbhai N. Kapadia (Respondent) joined service of the Institute of Agriculture as Executive Engineer from July 15, 1971. He was transferred to the Agriculture University. In August, 1974, his pay was revised to Rs. 700-1250 later upgraded to Rs. 1100-1600. From July 12, 1978, he was appointed as Director of Purchase and Properties (DPP) in Gujarat Agricultural University (GAU). The Board of Management decided to revise the pay scale of DPP from Rs. 1100-1600 to Rs. 1600-2000. The decision taken by the Board of Management was accepted by the Vice Chancellor. Therefore, vide notification dated December 22, 1982, the post and pay scale were upgraded and he was extended the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2000 from January 16, 1983. Of course, the respondent was placed under suspension in a domestic inquiry which culminated in order dated August 12, 1991. Vide this order, one increment of the petitioner had been stopped. This order is relevant to the extent that the suspension allowance of the respondent has been worked out on the basis of the upgraded pay scale which has been given to him. The post of DPP has been made equivalent to the post of Superintending Engineer as reflected in the notification issued by the Vice Chancellor in view of the Board of Management Meeting order dated September 10, 1982. Subsequently, the Local Fund Audit raised objection with regard to the pay scale of the respondent Rs. 3700-5000 on the ground that no such pay scale was sanctioned by the State Government and the sanctioned pay scale for the post of DPP was Rs. 3000-4500. Accordingly, the pay scale was reduced from Rs. 3700-5000 to Rs. 3000-4500 vide order dated August 3, 1994. Therefore, the respondent challenged this decision through Special Civil Application No. 6131 of 1995 on the grounds, inter alia, that the University could upgrade the post and grant the pay scale even without approval of the State Government. He also contended that he had been availing revised pay scale for the post and the decision reducing his pay scale has been taken without hearing the petitioner and for these reasons, he contends that the decision dated August 3, 1994 is liable to be quashed. Before the Single Judge, Shri Kotak, learned AGP contended that the decision dated August 3, 1994 has been taken pursuant to the objection raised by the Audit Department. Before the Single Judge, Shri Kotak, learned AGP contended that the decision dated August 3, 1994 has been taken pursuant to the objection raised by the Audit Department. Since the Pay Commission did not take into consideration the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2000, rather it took into consideration the pay scale of Rs. 1100-1600, revised to Rs. 3000-4500. Shri J.R. Nanavaty, learned Counsel for the University submitted that the placement of the petitioner in the lower scale is the result of the decision taken by the Government. However, he maintains that the post of DPP was upgraded by the University and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2000. The GAU was competent to do so. It did not require approval of the State Government for taking the decision irrespective of the fact that the University was receiving grant from the State. Giving consideration to these submissions advanced by the parties, the Single Judge held that the post of DPP was upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2000 from the pay scale of Rs. 1100-1600. Accordingly, the respondent was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2000. He discharged the duties in this pay scale from 1982 till 1992. None of the appellants had objected to the placement of respondent in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2000, rather, the pay scale was revised to Rs. 3700-5000 and retiral benefits calculated on that basis. All the authorities had similar approach with respect to the matter, but for the objections raised by the Local Fund after the retirement of the original petitioner. The Board of Management knew very well the pay scale of DPP. It upgraded this post to the level of Superintending Engineer. Having done so, the pay scale of the said post was naturally available to the respondent, So, it was sanctioned by the competent authority and the respondent availed it not only during the service but afterwards by way of pension. Therefore, examining the matter with this back ground and totality of circumstances, order of August 3, 1994 has been quashed. The respondent has been held entitled to the reliefs contained in the impugned judgment. Through this appeal, the State has challenged this judgment reiterating that on objection being raised by the Local Fund Office, the University decided to withdraw the pay scale. The respondent has been held entitled to the reliefs contained in the impugned judgment. Through this appeal, the State has challenged this judgment reiterating that on objection being raised by the Local Fund Office, the University decided to withdraw the pay scale. For the first time, the Government Resolution dated 14th September, 1976 has been placed before us in support of the contention. After having considered the submissions, we find that the GAU is financed by the State, Government of India, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and other Agencies. The State Government grant with regard to the salary, not less than the estimated net expenditure on pay and allowances. The Government may also extend financial assistance with respect to scheme(s) and any scheme initiated by the University without sanction by the Government is met from its own sources or taken from any other agencies. No other rule or regulation is brought to our notice enabling the State Government to control the functioning of the GAU with regard to the upgradation of post and grant of pay scale to the post (s), more so, post in question. Even otherwise, we find that before resorting to the action, the GAU and the respondent deserved hearing which has not been allowed. Therefore, giving consideration to the whole matter, we hold that the post of DPP was rightly upgraded by the GAU to the level of Superintending Engineer. The respondent was adjusted against this post, obviously entitled to the pay scale of Superintending Engineer admissible at that stage and revised from time to time. The State has no competence to nullify the order since the approval of the State Government was not necessary. Consequently, we are in agreement with the order of the Single Judge and the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The University to implement the judgment of the Single Judge within one month. In view of the above order, Civil Application No. 1322 of 2003 shall also stand disposed of with no order as to costs." 11. Relying on the two decisions referred to above, Mr. Upadyay tried to fortify his submission that prior sanction of the State Government was not necessary. In view of the above order, Civil Application No. 1322 of 2003 shall also stand disposed of with no order as to costs." 11. Relying on the two decisions referred to above, Mr. Upadyay tried to fortify his submission that prior sanction of the State Government was not necessary. I take notice of certain observations made by the Division Bench, wherein, the Bench has observed that the University is financed by the State Government as well as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and other Agencies. The Bench has observed that no rule or regulation was brought to their notice enabling the State Government to control the functioning of the University with regard to the upgradation of the posts and grant of pay scale to the posts. 12. I also take notice of the fact that the impugned order dated 27/03/2002 in the form of a communication by the Local Fund Office to the University was without giving any opportunity to both the sides i.e. the petitioner as well as the University. 13. In my view, the entire issue needs to be reconsidered by the State in view of the two decisions, which have been relied upon and quoted by me in this order. This writ-application is disposed of with a direction that the State Government shall reconsider the issue as regards the fixation of pension keeping in mind the two judgments of this Court and take a fresh decision within a period of two months from date of the receipt of the order. I expect the authority concerned to hear both - the petitioner as well as the University in person in this regard and thereafter, take a final decision. The final decision shall be in writing and it shall also reflect the consideration of the two judgments, which have been referred to above. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner. If the petitioner is dissatisfied in any manner with the decision, it shall be open for him to avail of an appropriate legal remedy in accordance with the law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.