JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment and order, dated 27th October, 2010, made by the learned Single Judge/Writ Court in CWP No. 234 of 2006, titled as Ramesh Chander Ladohia versus Sanatan Dharam Sabha and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 came to be allowed and the decision of the appellants-writ respondents No. 1 to 3 to retire the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 at the age of 58 years was declared illegal with a direction that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to have retired from service on 31st March, 2008, i.e. after attaining the age of sixty years (for short “the impugned judgment”). Brief facts: 2. Ramesh Chander Ladohia writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of the writ petition on 22nd March, 2006, and sought the following reliefs on the grounds taken therein:- “(i) That the respondents No. 1 to 4 may kindly be restrained from superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58 years, that is, with effect from March 31, 2006. (ii) That the respondents No. 1 to 4 may further be directed to permit the petitioner to continue in service up to the age of 60 years, that is the age of superannuation, as per Himachal Pradesh University Ordinances. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (iv) That the cost of this Civil Writ Petition throughout may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. (v) Any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned hereinabove, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 3. Alongwith the writ petition, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 moved application for interim directions, being CMP No. 349 of 2006, and vide order, dated 29th March, 2006, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was allowed to remain in service till the age of sixty years. Vide order, dated 25th April, 2006, the writ petition was admitted by providing that some important debatable questions were involved and interim direction, dated 29th March, 2006, was made absolute. 4. Vide order, dated 25th April, 2006, the writ petition was admitted by providing that some important debatable questions were involved and interim direction, dated 29th March, 2006, was made absolute. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, appellants-writ respondents No. 1 to 3 questioned the same by the medium of SLP (C) No. 15553 of 2006, titled as Sanatan Dharam Sanskrit College & Ors. versus Ramesh Chander Ladohia & Anr. and vide order, dated 25th September, 2006, order, dated 25th April, 2006, was stayed. The said SLP was disposed of vide order, dated 16th November, 2007, which is as under: “Since the impugned order is an interim order, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the teacher has also since retired. As far as this petition is concerned, nothing survives except to state that the college will abide by the orders passed ultimately in the final hearing by the High Court.” 5. While going through the said order, it is crystal clear that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 had since retired and all the questions were left open. 6. The appellant-writ respondents No. 1 to 3 had filed reply and pleaded that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), New Delhi, accorded approval for recognition of the erstwhile S.D. Sanatakotar Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Dohgi as Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya under the Scheme of “Financial Assistance to the Institutions Recognized as Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya/Shodha Sansthan” (for short “the Scheme”) with effect from 1st April, 1993, and it contained the terms and conditions relating to the service of the staff teaching and non-teaching. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 came to be appointed with effect from 1st April, 1993, on the recommendations of the Screening Committee with the condition that he had to improve his qualification within two years in terms of the Scheme and was placed in the scale of 1800-3200, which he accepted. 7. The reply also contains the details how the appellants-respondents No. 1 to 3 were forced to approach the Government of India, because earlier the institution had applied for aid to the State Government, but, did not grant the aid. 7. The reply also contains the details how the appellants-respondents No. 1 to 3 were forced to approach the Government of India, because earlier the institution had applied for aid to the State Government, but, did not grant the aid. The appellants-writ respondents No. 1 to 3 had also approached the Government of India, which granted aid to the institution under the Scheme contained at Annexure R4/ A, which specifically contains the provision that the age of retirement for teaching and non-teaching staff shall be such as was applicable to the corresponding staff employed in the Graduate/Post-Graduate Degree Colleges run by the State Government. It has also been pleaded that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 has accepted the terms and conditions contained in the policy and has not questioned the said Scheme. 8. It appears that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 moved an application, being CMP No. 3952 of 2008, for leave to amend the writ petition, which was granted vide order, dated 8th April, 2009. 9. By the medium of the amended writ petition, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 has sought for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the order of superannuation dated 22.3.06 (Annexure P8) passed by the respondents superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58 years may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the petitioner may be held entitled to all the consequential benefits in the eventuality of allowing prayer (i) including salary, gratuity, leave encashment etc. for the period from 1.4.06 to 31.3.08. (iii) That the respondents No. 1 to 4 may further be directed to permit the petitioner to continue in service up to the age of 60 years, that is the age of superannuation, as per Himachal Pradesh University Ordinances. (iv) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (v) That the cost of this Writ Petition throughout may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. (vi) Any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned hereinafter may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” 10. Mr. Paul has filed reply on behalf of appellants-institution and has almost taken the same grounds, which were taken in the earlier reply. Mr. Paul has filed reply on behalf of appellants-institution and has almost taken the same grounds, which were taken in the earlier reply. Annexure R4/A filed alongwith the reply contains letter of approval, dated 25th March, 1994, the Scheme and the Guidelines to Managing Committees of Adarsh Mahavidyalayas/Sodha Sanasthans regarding conditions governing the services of teaching and non-teaching staff (for short “the Guidelines”). It has specifically been pleaded that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 has accepted the order of appointment alongwith the terms and conditions contained in the Scheme and has not questioned Annexure R4/A, i.e. the letter of approval, Scheme and Guidelines, Annexure R4/B, i.e. communication, dated 20th February, 2006 prescribing the age of retirement as 58 years and Annexure R4/C, i.e. the order of retirement, dated 31st March, 2006, which is the follow-up order made in terms of the resolution made by the Managing Committee in its meeting, dated 22nd March, 2006 (Annexure P8), thus, cannot be permitted to question the resolution (Annexure P8). 11. It is apt to record herein that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), New Delhi, sent communication/letter of approval, dated 25th March, 1994, to the Principal, Sanatan Dharam Sanatakotar Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Dohgi, i.e. the appellants, conveying the approval of the Government of India to the recognition of appellants-institution as Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya with effect from 1st April, 1993 (Annexure R4/A) alongwith Scheme and the Guidelines containing the terms and conditions relating to the service of the staff – teaching and non-teaching. It is apt to reproduce Clause 7 of the Guidelines herein: “7. Retirement: The age of retirement for teaching and non-teaching staff shall be such as is applicable to corresponding staff employed in Graduate/Post-Graduate degree Colleges run by respective State Governments. The retirement will take effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which the employee attains the age of retirement.” 12. The perusal of the record does disclose that a communication was made by the appellants-institution to the Government of India/Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan seeking clarification regarding the retirement benefits, which was replied vide communication, dated 20th February, 2006 (Annexure R4/ B) in terms of which the age of retirement was prescribed as 58 years. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the said communication (Annexure R4/B) herein: “Subject: Retirement Benefit. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the said communication (Annexure R4/B) herein: “Subject: Retirement Benefit. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter dated 30.9.2005 on the subject cited above and to state as per the scheme of Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya the retirement age is applicable to them as is admissible to the staff employed in Graduate/Post Graduate Degree Colleges run by respective State Govt. Accordingly the retirement age in nearest Post Graduate College to your Mahavidyalaya is applicable to the staff of your Mahavidyalaya. As per enclosure furnished with the letter the retirement age has been prescribed 58 years. As per the scheme the employees are eligible to get C.P.F. & gratuity only.” 13. A meeting of the Managing Committee of the appellants-institution was held on 22nd March, 2006 and in terms of Rule 7 of the Scheme read with the directions of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University), New Delhi, it was decided to retire the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 on his attaining the age of 58 years. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the English translation of the minutes of the said meeting (Annexure P8/ T) herein: “Resolution No. 4 (2) Application submitted by Shri Ramesh Chand Ladohia to the Chairman regarding his retirement at the age of 60 years came up for consideration. According to Rule 7 (Retirement) of the Scheme of Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalayas which prescribes “the age of retirement of Teachers of Adarsh Sanskrit Colleges shall be same as prescribed for Teachers of the State Govt. Colleges” and according to the recent directions of the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University), New Delhi received vide letter No. (Ras/Act/35011/05-06/1137) 20-2-2006, it has been unanimously decided to retire Shri Ramesh Chand Ladohia on his attaining the age of 58 years on 31-3-2006.” 14. In compliance of Annexure P8, reproduced hereinabove, office order, dated 31st March, 2006 (Annexure R4/C with the reply to the amended writ petition) retiring the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 came to be issued as follow-up order. 15. The appellants-writ respondents No. 1 to 3 have specifically pleaded, as discussed hereinabove, that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 has not questioned the letter of approval, Scheme and Guidelines (Annexure R4/A), the communication (Annexure R4/ B) and the office order retiring him at the age of 58 years (Annexure R4/C with the reply to the amended writ petition). 16. 15. The appellants-writ respondents No. 1 to 3 have specifically pleaded, as discussed hereinabove, that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 has not questioned the letter of approval, Scheme and Guidelines (Annexure R4/A), the communication (Annexure R4/ B) and the office order retiring him at the age of 58 years (Annexure R4/C with the reply to the amended writ petition). 16. Thus, the question is – whether the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 could seek the reliefs enumerated in the original writ petition/amended writ petition without questioning the letter of approval, Scheme and the Guidelines (Annexure R4/A) read with communication (Annexure R4/B) and the order of retirement (Annexure R4/C with the reply to the amended writ petition)? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 17. The institution is being run by the Managing Committee in terms of the mandate of the Scheme, the Guidelines and 95% grant-in-aid made by the Government of India, as discussed hereinabove. While granting grant-in-aid, the letter of approval, Scheme and Guidelines have been issued, which also contain the terms and conditions relating to the service of the teaching and non-teaching staff. In the given circumstances, the institution, the Managing Committee and the staff – teaching and non-teaching are to be governed by the terms and conditions contained in the said Scheme and the Guidelines, not by any other Rule/ Regulation/Ordinance/Resolution. 18. The Writ Court, while making reference to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case titled as T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others versus State of Karnaaka and others, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 , has discussed and reproduced, in para 17 of the impugned judgment, that the State Governments are within their powers to make regulations relating to the terms and conditions of employment of the teacher and non-teaching staff whenever the aid for the posts is given by the State as well as admission procedures. It is apt to reproduce para 73 of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case (supra) herein: “73. There are a large number of education institutions, like schools and nonprofessional colleges, which cannot operate without the support of aid from the State. Although these institutions may have bee established by philanthropists or other public-spirited persons, it becomes necessary, in order to provide inexpensive education to the students, to seek aid from the State. There are a large number of education institutions, like schools and nonprofessional colleges, which cannot operate without the support of aid from the State. Although these institutions may have bee established by philanthropists or other public-spirited persons, it becomes necessary, in order to provide inexpensive education to the students, to seek aid from the State. In such cases, as those of the professional aided institutions referred to hereinabove, the Government would be entitled to make regulations relating to the terms and conditions of employment of the teaching and non-teaching staff whenever the aid for the posts is given by the State as well as admission procedures. Such rules and regulations can also provide for the reasons and the manner in which a teacher or any other member of the staff can be removed. In other words, the autonomy of a private aided institution would be less than that of an unaided institution.” 19. The mandate of the said judgment is that the terms and conditions relating to the service conditions framed by the Government providing/granting aid are binding upon the appellants-institution. 20. It is also apt to record herein that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was not eligible for being appointed as Lecturer, in terms of Annexure R4/A letter of approval, as he was not having MA (Second Class) degree in Hindi, was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher with the specific condition that he had to improve his MA (Hindi) qualification within two years and his case was to be reviewed after two years for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) on improving his qualification within the stipulated period. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of Annexure R4/A letter of approval, dated 25th March, 1994, herein: “3. It has also been decided that the existing teaching and non-teaching staff in the Mahavidyalaya may be absorbed as per details given below:- (1).…........ (2).…....... (3) Lecturer (Modern Subjects) Shri Ramesh Chand Ladohia presently working as Lecturer (Hindi) does not have M.A. (Second Class) degree in Hindi. He may be appointed as Postgraduate Teacher with the specific condition that he shall have to improve his MA (Hindi) qualification within 2 years. His case may be reviewed after 2 years for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) if he improves his qualification within the stipulated period.” (Emphasis added) 21. He may be appointed as Postgraduate Teacher with the specific condition that he shall have to improve his MA (Hindi) qualification within 2 years. His case may be reviewed after 2 years for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) if he improves his qualification within the stipulated period.” (Emphasis added) 21. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 came to be appointed as per the terms and conditions contained in the letter of approval and relaxation was granted with a command to improve his eligibility/qualification. He could not have been appointed if the Ordinance of Himachal Pradesh University (for short “the Ordinance”) would have been made applicable. The Ordinance nowhere provides for appointment of a person, who is not eligible, as a Lecturer as such. Thus, he accepted the same and cannot now blow hot and cold. 22. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 accepted all the terms and conditions, thus, cannot be allowed now to make a u-turn at the end of the day, i.e. on the date of superannuation, that too, after a lapse of more than about thirteen years. Had he made any murmur at that point of time, he could not have been appointed because he was not having the requisite qualification. 23. It is beaten law of land that delay takes away the settings of law. A person who does not seek relief within the time frame, his petition has to be dismissed only on the grounds of delay and laches, waiver and acquiescence, otherwise, it would amount to gross misuse of jurisdiction. 24. The Apex Court in a case titled as R & M Trust versus Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others, reported in (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 91, held that delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; delay defeats equity and it cannot be brushed aside without any plausible explanation. 25. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases titled as S.D.O. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others versus Timudu Oram, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 3715; Srinivasa Bhat (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. versus A. Sarvothama Kini (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2106 and Bhakra Beas Management Board versus Kirshan Kumar Vij & Anr., reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3342. 26. & Ors. versus A. Sarvothama Kini (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2106 and Bhakra Beas Management Board versus Kirshan Kumar Vij & Anr., reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3342. 26. In another case titled as State of Jammu & Kashmir versus R.K. Zalpuri and others, reported in JT 2015 (9) SC 214, the Apex Court held that a Writ Court while deciding a writ petition, is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. It is apt to reproduce paras 26 to 28 of the judgment herein: “26. In the case at hand, the employee was dismissed from service in the year 1999, but he chose not to avail any departmental remedy. He woke up from his slumber to knock at the doors of the High Court after a lapse of five years. The staleness of the claim remained stale and it could not have been allowed to rise like a phoenix by the writ court. 27. The grievance agitated by the respondent did not deserve to be addressed on merits, for doctrine of delay and laches had already visited his claim like the chill of death which does not spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea and nurtures the attitude that he can sleep to avoid death and eventually proclaim "Deo gratias" 'thanks to God'. 28. Another aspect needs to be stated. A writ court while deciding a writ petition is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless noninterference would cause grave injustice. The present case, need less to emphasise, did not justify adjudication. It deserved to be thrown overboard at the very threshold, for the writ petitioner had accepted the order of dismissal for half a decade and cultivated the feeling that he could freeze time and forever remain in the realm of constant present.” 27. Applying the test to the instant case, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 is also caught by delay, laches, waiver and acquiescence. 28. Even otherwise, without questioning the letter of approval, Scheme, Guidelines and the office order retiring him at the age of 58 years, the writ petition was not maintainable. 29. Applying the test to the instant case, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 is also caught by delay, laches, waiver and acquiescence. 28. Even otherwise, without questioning the letter of approval, Scheme, Guidelines and the office order retiring him at the age of 58 years, the writ petition was not maintainable. 29. In view of the above, the Ordinance and any other Rule/Regulation/Resolution are not applicable and the case of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 is squarely covered by Annexures R4/A and R4/B. 30. Having said so, the impugned judgment merits to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed.