JUDGMENT & ORDER : These three Writ Appeals have been filed by the State against the common judgment dated 07.4.2015 of the learned single Judge in three writ petitions. 2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent, Shri K. Singh while working as a Librarian in LMS Law College was made to retire on superannuation on attaining the age of 62 years w.e.f. 31.3.2014. The other respondent, Smt. O. Pramodini Devi, while working as a Librarian in Imphal College was also made to retire on superannuation on attaining the age of 62 years w.e.f. 31.12.2013. Both of them were made to retire by order of the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Manipur dated 28.1.2014. While the matter stood thus and the respondents were waiting to get their retirement benefits, another order was passed by the Dy. Secretary, Higher Education on 25.4.2014 modifying his earlier order dated 28.1.2014 and directing retirement of both the respondents on attaining the age of 60 years i.e. with effect from 31.3.2012 and 31.12.2011 respectively. The said order of the Dy. Secretary, Higher Education dated 25.4.2014 is quoted below: “GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETATIRAT:HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT --- ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR:MANIPUR Imphal, the 25th April, 2014 No.7(2)/12/2008-HE (Pt.): In partial modification of this Govt. orders of even number dated 28.01.2014 regarding retirement/termination from services on attaining the age of superannuation in respect of 2(two) Librarians, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to retire the following Librarians of Govt. Colleges under the Department of Higher Education on attaining the age of 60 (sixty) years as detailed below: Sl. No. Name, Designation & College of the employees Effective date of retirement 1 Shri K.Manojkumar Singh, Librarian, LMS Law College 31.03.2012(AN) 2 Smt. O.Pramodini Devi, Librarian, Imphal College, Imphal 31.12.2011(AN) 2. Further, on their retirement, their service shall stand terminated with the aforesaid respective date. By orders & in the name of Governor, Sd/-(Y.Dimbajit Singh) Deputy Secretary(Hr.Education), Government of Manipur.” 3. Challenging the above order, both the respondents made separate representations and when the representations were not considered, they challenged the said order by filing two writ petitions before this Court. Shri K. Manojkumar Singh filed WP(C) No. 392 of 2014 whereas Smt. O. Pramodini Devi filed WP(C) No. 393 of 2014 challenging the order of the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education dated 25.4.2014 in Annexcure A/5 to the writ appeal. 4. Shri K. Manojkumar Singh filed WP(C) No. 392 of 2014 whereas Smt. O. Pramodini Devi filed WP(C) No. 393 of 2014 challenging the order of the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education dated 25.4.2014 in Annexcure A/5 to the writ appeal. 4. Both the above respondents jointly filed WP(C) No.453 of challenging the order of the Government of Manipur Hr. Education Department dated 4.6.2014 wherein it was clarified that the State Government of Manipur had not adopted UGC Regulations 2010 in toto like effective date of implementation, actual payment and age of superannuation for College Librarians etc. 5. It was contended by the respondents before the learned Single Judge that UGC Regulations 2010 prescribe the date of superannuation of College Librarians at 62 years and consequently both of them were allowed to work as Librarians till they attained the age of 62 years. Therefore, there was no reason on the part of the State authorities to direct their retirement on attaining the age of 60 years. According to the respondents the UGC Regulations 2010 have to be accepted in toto and therefore they were rightly permitted to work till they attained the age of 62 years. The appellants contested the proceeding before the learned Single Judge and took a stand that State Government did not accept the UGC Regulations 2010 in full and in partial modification thereof a concious decision was taken only to extend the age of retirement of teachers working in the Government Colleges from 60 to 62 years. So far as the Librarians are concerned, no decision was taken by the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. Further, stand of the Government before the learned single Judge was that due to bonafide mistake both the respondents were allowed to continue even after attaining the age of 60 years till they attained the age of 62 years and the said respondents cannot take advantage of such a mistake on the part of the State Government in permitting them to continue beyond the age of superannuation as per FR 56(2). 6. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents on the ground that the State Govt. 6. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents on the ground that the State Govt. did not produce any document to show that a decision had been taken to implement the UGC Regulations 2010 in part or that State Government had taken any decision not to implement the prescription of enhancement of age of superannuation of Librarians from 60 to 62 years available in the UGC Regulations 2010. 7. Having heard Mr. T. Rajendro, learned counsel for the and the State counsel, we find that two issues are involved for determination in these three appeals. The first issue is as to whether it is open for the State Government to accept the UGC Regulations 2010 in full or take acceptance of the same in partial modification thereof. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.P.GEORGE & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA & ORS reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191 . In the said reported case, the apex Court was considering a scheme formulated by the UGC and held that the scheme is not binding on the State Government or the University functioning under the relevant statute in the State. The State Govt. has discretion either to accept the scheme in full or in modified form or not to accept at all. No other decision has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents taking a contrary view. Therefore, in terms of the above decision of the apex Court, it is open for the State Government to either accept the recommendation made in the UGC Regulations 2010 in full, or in partial modification thereof. The State Government is also free not to accept the recommendation at all. We find from the annexures that while considering the above UGC Regulations 2010, State Government took a conscious decision to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers from 60 to 62 years in partial acceptance of the recommendation made in the UGC Regulations 2010. There is nothing on record to show that a similar decision was taken by the State Government so far as Librarians are concerned. There is no dispute that both the respondents were allowed to continue to work as Librarians even after attaining the age of 60 years and they were made to retire only after completing the age of 62 years. There is no dispute that both the respondents were allowed to continue to work as Librarians even after attaining the age of 60 years and they were made to retire only after completing the age of 62 years. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on a letter written by the Deputy Secretary, Hr. Education to the Accountant General, Manipur dated 24.10.2013 to substantiate his submission that the Government had taken a decision also to accept the recommendation made in the UGC Regulations 2010 to enhance the age of Librarians from 60 to 62 years. No doubt, in the said letter dated 24.10.2013, it is mentioned that Government College Librarians posted in Colleges who are not involved in class-room teaching are to retire at the age of 62 years but the same has been clarified later on 4.6.2014 by an order of the Commissioner, Hr. Education wherein it is stated that the State Govt. of Manipur had not adopted the UGC Regulations 2010 in toto like effective date of implementation thereof, actual payment and age of superannuation for college Librarians etc. A letter was also written by the Deputy Secretary, Hr. Education to the Accountant General, Manipur on 8.5.2014 to the above effect. Though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. T. Rajendro that these two letters came into existence after filing of the writ petitions, we cannot ignore the clarification given by the State Government in the above order dated 4.6.2014 as well as the letter of the Deputy Secretary, Hr. Education dt. 8.5.2014 considering the fact that no decision had been taken by the State Govt. to implement that part of the recommendation of the UGC Regulations 2010 prescribing enhancement of retirement age of Librarians from 60 to 62 years. We are, therefore of the view that in absence of any such decision on the part of the State Govt. accepting the recommendation of the UGC Regulations 2010 for enhancing the age of superannuation of Librarians from 60 to 62 years, continuance of the respondents as Librarian beyond the age of 60 years till they attained the age of 62 years was a mistake on the part of the State Government and therefore both the respondents cannot take advantage of such a mistake. 8. 8. We are, further, of the view that in absence of any decision as stated above, both the respondents should have been made to retire on attaining the age of 60 years and consequently the said impugned decision taken by the State Government rectifying the mistake cannot be set aside. We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.