JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. The appellants-original respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 1 respectively have filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 10.08.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9626 of 2014 for limited purpose of setting aside the observations and directions given in para 21 and 22 of the said order. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. The respondent No.1-original petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant by the appellant-University in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-430 in the year 1982. In 1986, petitioner submitted a representation to the appellant University wherein he had requested that he should be paid the pay-scale of Laboratory Technician on the basis of the resolution dated 24.10.1981. Such representation of the petitioner was accepted by the appellant-University by an order dated 20.12.1986. The said pay-scale of Laboratory Technician was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner as well as two other employees. The petitioner retired in the year 2010. However, at the time of granting the retiral benefits, certain issues were raised with regard to the service condition of the petitioner. Appellant-University was receiving grant from the Government and the petitioner was being paid his salary in particular pay-scale till the date he retired from service. 2.2. At the time of retirement, the respondent-State Government raised an issue as to how the petitioner was appointed and on what basis he was being paid the pay-scale of Laboratory Technician. When the retiral benefits were not granted by the appellant-University and the respondent Government, the petitioner preferred Application No. 40/2011 before the Gujarat University Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad. The Tribunal, by an order dated 17.07.2013, rejected the said application. The" petitioner therefore filed a petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the appellant-University is directed to immediately calculate the retiral benefits which the petitioner would have received upon his attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2010 and also given the direction to pay the amount with 10% interest till the date of actual payment within stipulated time limit. However, at the same time, learned Single Judge clarified that it shall be open for the State Government to take appropriate steps against the University. The appellant-University has therefore preferred the present appeal challenging the observations made in para 21 and 22 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.N. Shelat with learned advocate Mr. A.R. Thacker for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Anand B. Gogia for respondent No. 1-original petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shelat mainly contended that the appellant-University is receiving grant from the State Government and accordingly the payment has been made to the petitioner in a particular pay-scale. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Laboratory Assistant in the grade of pay-scale of Rs. 260-430. At this stage, learned counsel has referred to the Government Resolution dated 24.10.1981 which is produced at page 183 of the compilation and thereafter submitted that as per the said resolution, Government has made the amendment in the pay-scale of non-teaching staff of Universities and the designation of Laboratory Assistant has been substituted as Laboratory Technician. The pay-scale of Laboratory Technician was prescribed as Rs. 380-600. Thus, on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner, the appellant-University granted the pay-scale of Laboratory Technician to the petitioner as stated in the resolution. The same was also approved by the Local Audit Fund. Accordingly, the petitioner was paid the salary in the said pay-scale from 1986 till 2010 i.e. the date of his superannuation. Thus, the appellant-University has not committed any illegality. The appellant - University has received grant from the Government from which the petitioner has been paid his salary and therefore there is no question of recovery of any amount from the University and therefore the direction of learned Single Judge that the University shall pay from its own fund be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly observed in para 21 and 22 that State Government can take appropriate steps against the University and State Government is not liable to make any payment to the University and therefore University has to pay the amount from its own funds. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly observed in para 21 and 22 that State Government can take appropriate steps against the University and State Government is not liable to make any payment to the University and therefore University has to pay the amount from its own funds. It is contended that it is the University which has granted the pay-scale of Laboratory Technician to the petitioner though he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-430 by wrongly interpreting the G.R. dated 24.10.1981. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred to certain observations made by the Tribunal in its order as well as the affidavit filed by the University also. He, therefore, urged that learned Single Judge has not committed any error and hence this appeal be dismissed. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Gogia appearing for the original petitioner submitted that petitioner was entitled to get the retiral benefits from the respondents. The amount in question has already been deposited with the Tribunal and invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts. It is submitted that this Court, by an impugned order dated 15.01.2016, directed that two Fixed Deposits of Rs. 6,24,396/- and 4,30,616/- respectively be paid to the petitioner with accrued interest and the remaining amount of third Fixed Deposit of Rs. 44,515/-, which is maturing on 17.07.2016, shall be considered for payment on the next date of hearing. Now, the said Fixed Deposit is also matured and when the appeal is to be disposed of finally, necessary direction be issued for the payment of the said Fixed Deposit with accrued interest. He, therefore, submitted that appropriate order be passed in this appeal. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Laboratory Assistant by the appellant-University in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-430. However, in the meantime, the State Government issued resolution on 24.10.1983, which reads as under: "Amendment in the pay-scale of Non-teaching staff of Universities GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT FINANCE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. PCR-3077-228/M, Dated the 24th October-1981. Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. 260-430. However, in the meantime, the State Government issued resolution on 24.10.1983, which reads as under: "Amendment in the pay-scale of Non-teaching staff of Universities GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT FINANCE DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO. PCR-3077-228/M, Dated the 24th October-1981. Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. RESOLUTION Government is pleased to direct that under the heading "Saurashtra University" in schedule-I accompanying the Government Resolution, Finance Department No. PCR/3075/86-M, dated 23rd June, 76 the following amendment should be made for the existing entry: Sr. No. In the Sch. 1 Designation 2 Present Scale 3 Scale recommended by the Commission 4 Scale accepted by the Government 5 Remarks 6 62 Laboratory Assistant 155-465 260-430 260-430 Substituted the following entry : 62 Laboratory Technician 155-465 260-430 380-600 3. This order take effect on and from the 1st January, 1973. 4. The University employees covered under this order should be allowed to exercise fresh option within the period of four months from the date of issue of this order. Those who fail to exercise the option within the period specified above shall be deemed to have elected the revised scale from 1st January, 1973. By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat. Sd/- (M.J. LADE) Secretary Officer, Finance Department" 8. On the basis of the said resolution, the petitioner made representation to the appellant-University for consideration of his designation as Laboratory Technician and for grant of pay-scale of Rs. 380-600. The University accepted the said representation and granted said pay-scale to the petitioner with the approval of the Local Audit Fund and State Government accordingly sanctioned the grant and University paid the salary to the petitioner till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation i.e. up to year 2010. However, only at the time of granting retiral benefits the issue was raised by the State Government with regard to pay-scale given to the petitioner. The retiral benefits were not given to the petitioner and therefore he approached before the Tribunal. However, his application was dismissed and therefore he filed captioned petition before this Court. However, only at the time of granting retiral benefits the issue was raised by the State Government with regard to pay-scale given to the petitioner. The retiral benefits were not given to the petitioner and therefore he approached before the Tribunal. However, his application was dismissed and therefore he filed captioned petition before this Court. In the facts of the present case, when the State Government has given the grant to the appellant-University and University has made the payment to the petitioner, it is not proper on the part of the learned Single Judge to observe that it is open for the State Government to take appropriate steps against the University and in giving direction to the University to make the payment from its own fund if the State Government would not be making any payment to the University. At this stage, it is required to be observed that the State Government has not challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge by filing an appeal. Learned Single Judge has also observed that it is not permissible to recover the amount of salary paid to the petitioner on the basis of various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such findings are not challenged by the State Government by filing an appeal. 9. We are of the opinion that once the Local Audit Fund has sanctioned the pay-scale, thereafter the said office has wrongly raised an objection with regard to grant of pay-scale and recovery of amount from the petitioner. We are also of the opinion that once the appellant University was receiving grant from the State Government, the University cannot be directed to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner from its own fund and when the amount of salary has been actually paid to the petitioner, the State Government cannot be permitted to recover the said amount from the appellant University. To that extent, we are of the opinion that the direction given by the learned Single Judge against the appellant-University is required to be set aside. 10. At this stage, it is to be noted that this Court passed an order on 15.01.2016, wherein this Court observed in para 3, 5 and 6 as under: "3. So far as the amount in question is concerned, it has already been deposited with the Tribunal and invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipt. 10. At this stage, it is to be noted that this Court passed an order on 15.01.2016, wherein this Court observed in para 3, 5 and 6 as under: "3. So far as the amount in question is concerned, it has already been deposited with the Tribunal and invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipt. Therefore, instead of 10%, the amount of interest earned on the said amount may be payable and not fixed interest @10% p.a. Mr. Gogia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-original petitioner submits that the interest earned on the fixed deposit receipt is paid, then his client would not insist for the interest @10% p.a. As observed by the learned Single Judge. xxx xxx xxx 5. Hence, notice for final disposal returnable on 10.2.2016. By ad-interim order, the operation and implementation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge so far as making observations enabling the State Government to recover the amount from the University is concerned shall remain stayed and suspended. It is clarified that consequently, respondent No. 1-original petitioner would be entitled to the amount of retiral benefits but the interest earned on the said investment in the fixed deposit receipt shall be paid to him and the direction of the learned Single Judge so far as payment of interest @10% p.a. Would no more be required to be implemented since the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-original petitioner has also declared that the original petitioner shall be satisfied with the interest earned on the fixed deposit receipt after deposit of the said amount with the Tribunal shall be sufficient. 6. It has been reported that there are three fixed deposit receipts-one of Rs. 6,24,396/- which has matured on 7.1.2016, another of Rs. 4,30,616/- which has matured on 7.1.2016 and third of Rs. 44,515/- which is maturing on 17.7.2016. As there is now no loss of interest so far as the aforesaid fixed deposit receipts which have matured on 7.1.2016, subject to further orders, the respondent No. 1-original petitioner shall be paid the amount of Rs. 6,24,396/- + Rs. 4,30,616/- + accrued interest, if any. The payment shall be made within 15 (fifteen) days from today. The payment for the remaining amount of Rs. 44,515/- shall be considered on the next date of hearing." 11. Thus, the petitioner has already received an amount of Fixed Deposits of Rs. 6,24,396/- and Rs. 6,24,396/- + Rs. 4,30,616/- + accrued interest, if any. The payment shall be made within 15 (fifteen) days from today. The payment for the remaining amount of Rs. 44,515/- shall be considered on the next date of hearing." 11. Thus, the petitioner has already received an amount of Fixed Deposits of Rs. 6,24,396/- and Rs. 4,30,616/- with interest. However, now the remaining amount of third Fixed Deposit, which has been matured on 17.07.2016, of Rs. 44,515/- with accrued interest shall be paid to the petitioner. As the petitioner has not insisted for interest @ 10% per annum as directed by the learned Single Judge, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to that extent. 12. Accordingly, the observations and directions issued by the learned Single Judge in para 21 and 22 of the judgment dated 10.08.2015 impugned in this appeal are hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. 13. In view of disposal of the main appeal, civil application does not survive and accordingly it stands disposed of.