ORDER : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of an oral judgment dated 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4823 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge confirmed the judgment dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by which the Tribunal had dismissed the application of the appellant holding that the petitioner's past services which he had rendered in the Universities of Karnataka and Pune could not be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits in computing the total length of qualifying service. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. The appellant is a literarian and his profile reproduced hereinbelow speaks for itself. Professor R.A. Malagi A Profile Professor and Head, Department of English, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad 380089, since 26-9-1977. Also, Director School of Languages, Gujarat University; from 1986. (Date of birth : 26 August, 1938; Date of retirement : 31 October, 1998) Previous Service M.E.S. College, Poona, from 1961 to 1971, concurrently visiting lecturer, University of Poona from 1966 to 1971. (2) Reader in English, Karnatak University, Dharwad, September 1971 to September 1977. Academic Career B.A. Karnatak University, 1958 M.A. Karnatak University, 1960 Gold medalist , first in the university at both examinations PH.D. submitted, December 1967, awarded January 1970. Subject : The Problem of Evil in the Novels of Graham Greene. Guide : Professor G.C. Bannerjee (Bombay). (Thesis highly praised) Did my B.A. under Professor V.K. Gokak, Karnatak College, Dharwad. Membership of learned bodies: (1) Dante Society of America, Harvard University, Camb. Mass. (2) Societa Dantesca Italiana, Florence (3) The Classical Association, London (4) Advisory board, Shakespeare Society of India, Delhi Languages Known (1) Greek (2) Latin (3) Italian (4) French (working knowledge) (5) Sanskrit (6) Kannada (7) Marathi (8) Hindi (9) Gujarati Fields of Specialisation 1. Comparative Literature 2. Dante 3. Milton and Shakespeare 4. Ancient Western and Indian Classics (epic & drama) List of Publications I Book : (Monograph) The Western Epic Tradition : Its Unity and Continuity (Gujarat University, 1982) Papers: 1. Graham Greene's The Comedians : Freedom through Comedy? Karnatak University Journal, 1969 2. Shakespeare and the Paradox of Evil, with special reference to the Romances, Karnatak University Journal, 1970. 3. Graham Greene's Travels with my Aunt. Graham Greene's The Comedians : Freedom through Comedy? Karnatak University Journal, 1969 2. Shakespeare and the Paradox of Evil, with special reference to the Romances, Karnatak University Journal, 1970. 3. Graham Greene's Travels with my Aunt. A Harvest of Comedy, (I) Karnatak University Journal, 1971. 4. Graham Greene's Travels with my Aunt. A Harvest of Comedy, (II) Karnatak University Journal, 1972. 5. 'Versions of Melancholy' and Milton's 'IL Penseroso', Karnatak University Journal, 1974. 6. The Artifice of Eternity : Yeats's 'Saiiing to Byzanium' and Keats's 'Ode on a Grecian Urn'. Karnatak University Journal, 1975. 7. From Irreligion to Religion : The Metaphysic of Revenge in the Oresteia and Hamlet. Karnatak University Journal, 1976. 8. Review Article 'In Quest of Indian Literature' on Suresh Kohli (Ed.) : Aspects of Indian Literature, Indian Book Chronicle, Vol. I, No. 4, February 16, 1976, New Delhi, (Ed. Amrik Singh) 9. T.P. Kailasam's Kama, Perspectives on Indian Drama in English. Macmillan, 1977. 10, 11. The Dark Wood: The Initial Spiritual Crisis in The Divine Comedy and the Bhagavadgita, Karnatak University Journal, 1977-78. 12. The Concept of Catharsis : An Exploration, Gujarat University Journal, January, 1978 13. Review Article : 'One word is too often profaned', a review of three collections of Indo-Anglian poems, IBC, May 16, 1978. 14. Review Article : The Russian Revolution and the Indian Renaissance', a review of Qumar Rais 'The October Revolution": Impact on Indian Literature. Sterling Publishers, Delhi, 1978 in IBC, 16 August, 1978. 15. Sri Aurobindo's Lurical Poetry, Gujarat University Journal. August, 1978 16. Swami Vivekanand's Prose, Perspectives on Indian Prose in English. Ed. Dr. M.K. Naik et al (Abhinav Prakashan, New Delhi, 1982) 17. On the Horns of a Neo-classical Dilemma : Some Contradictions in Johnson's Preface to Shakespeare, Gujarat University Journal, August, 1979. 18. Beyond a Preference for Limits, New Poetry with reference to some New Poets. Gujarat University Journal, January, 1980. 19. Indian Poetry in English Today, Some Observations, Gujarat University Journal, August 1980 20. Odorous Comparisons : Dante and Sri Aurobindo, A review article, Gujarat University Journal, January, 1981. (Also in the Indian Book Chronicle) 21. La Divina Commedia, Inferno, Canto I, The Italian Text with Glossarial Notes and Translation in English, Gujarat University Journal, August 1981 22. La Divina Commedia. Inferno. Canto II, A Comprehensive Commentary, Gujarat University Journal 1982 (pub. 1985) 23. Dante and T.S. Eliot, The Literary Criterion, Mysore Nos. (Also in the Indian Book Chronicle) 21. La Divina Commedia, Inferno, Canto I, The Italian Text with Glossarial Notes and Translation in English, Gujarat University Journal, August 1981 22. La Divina Commedia. Inferno. Canto II, A Comprehensive Commentary, Gujarat University Journal 1982 (pub. 1985) 23. Dante and T.S. Eliot, The Literary Criterion, Mysore Nos. 3 & 4 (special edition) Vol XXIV, 1989. 25. G.M. Hopkins : The Wreck of Deutschland' : Another Paradigm of Providence, Journal of the Gujarat State University English Teachers Association, 1990 26. 'Four Quartets' and 'Paradiso', The Fire and the Rose New Essays on Eliot, Ed. Vinod Sena & Rajiva Verma, OUP, Delhi, 1992 27. The Vedantic Concept of Love, Journal of the Sanskrit Sahitya Parishad, 1992. 28. The Truth of the Mahabharta, Anand Bharati, Dr. K. Krishnamoorty Felicitation Volume, Edd. B Channakeshava and H.V. Nagaraj Rao, D.V.K. Murthy, Mysore, 1995. 29. Shakespeare : The Classic of Classics, Shakespeare : Varied Perspectives Ed. Vikram Chopra, B.R. Publishing Corporation Delhi, 1996. 30. An Interior Affinity : The Greek and the Indian Literatures, HEPTA HEMERES, Athens, 29, December, 1996. 31. Dr. Faustus. Macbeth and the Nemesis of Humanism. Due for publication shortly, Delaware University Press, USA, 1998. 32. 'The Lord of Terrible Aspect' : An Essay on Shakespeare's Sonnets', Dr D.N. Dhavale Felicitation Volume, Edd. Dani and Madge, Poona, 1998. 33. Contributions to A DANTE ENCYCLOPEDIA, Dante Society of America, Harvard Camb. Mass. 1998 IV Projects Completed 1. The Initial Spiritual Crisis in the Divine Comedy and the Bhagavadgita (Karnatak University, 1976-77). 2. 'The Unitive Vision of the Divine Comedy and the Bhagavadgita (Gujarat University, 1980-81). 3. 'Inferno, Cantos I-X, A Comprehensive Commentary, (Gujarat University, 1985-86). 4. The Divine Comedy and the Bhagavadgita as philosophic poems, (Gujarat University, 1995-97)." 2.2. The appellant joined the Government Polytechnic at Pune as an Assistant Professor of English and worked from July 1961 to September 1971. In September 1971, he joined the Karnataka University as Reader and continued to work as such till September 1977. An advertisement appeared in national newspapers for appointment of Professors in English in the School of Languages under the Gujarat University. The appellant applied and was selected. He joined the services as Professor of English when so appointed by appointment order dated 29.08.1997. He retired on superannuation on 31.08.2000. An advertisement appeared in national newspapers for appointment of Professors in English in the School of Languages under the Gujarat University. The appellant applied and was selected. He joined the services as Professor of English when so appointed by appointment order dated 29.08.1997. He retired on superannuation on 31.08.2000. Having so retired, he was extended the benefits of pension on the basis of his total length of service from 26.09.1997 to 31.08.2000, being total service of 23 years. 2.3. Since his past service rendered in the Universities of Pune and Karnataka were not added as qualifying services for the purpose of computation of pension, the appellant approached the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal by filing Application No. 17 of 2001. The Tribunal by its order dated 28.11.2003 rejected the application and did not agree with the contention of the appellant in considering the past services rendered in the Universities of Pune and Karnataka for being counted for the purposes of pension. The Tribunal while basing its judgment held that the Government Resolutions dated 15.10.1984 and 26.09.1989 were for the purposes of counting the services was restricted to the colleges or institution in which the concerned employee had rendered service within the State of Gujarat. The Tribunal's reasoning for all purposes reads as under: "42. In G.R. Dated 15/10/84, it appears by way of clause (6) whereas in G.R. Dtd. 26/9/89 also it appears by way of clause (6). Both these clauses make it clear that service rendered in the institution named in the same which are getting grant-in-aid from Government can be taken into consideration as a qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Needless to say that both G.Rs. Are issued by the Education Department of Government of Gujarat and therefore it will be applicable to it and in any case word 'Government' cannot be construed as including State Government and or Union Government. In that case of the circumstances, it appears to me that if one has rendered service in the institution/college/department which gets grant in aid from State of Gujarat where pension scheme has been applied then only the service rendered can be taken into consideration as qualifying service. There is no provision of any of the aforesaid two G.Rs. In that case of the circumstances, it appears to me that if one has rendered service in the institution/college/department which gets grant in aid from State of Gujarat where pension scheme has been applied then only the service rendered can be taken into consideration as qualifying service. There is no provision of any of the aforesaid two G.Rs. That service rendered in the University/college, out of State of Gujarat can be taken into consideration as qualifying service for the purpose of fixing pension to be paid from the treasury of State of Gujarat. Not only that while deciding Application No. 48/98 being case of Fakubeg Adambeg Inamdar, this tribunal has taken the view that service rendered out of State of Gujarat can be taken into consideration for the purpose of senior scale and selection grade but not for the purpose of fixing pension. This Tribunal has taken the view, as disclosed by opponent No. 5, in its reply, & the same is not denied by the applicant by filing any rejoinder or by pointing out to this Tribunal that how the applicant differs from the aforesaid case decided by this Tribunal. No provision in support of applicant's case, on this point is pointed out for applicant even from opponent Uni's law. In that case of the circumstances and in absence of any provision to the effect that service rendered out of State of Gujarat can be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, it is difficult for this Tribunal to accept the prayer made to that effect." 2.4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge who concurred with the view. Hence the appeal. 3. Mr. S.P. Hasurakar, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge fell in error in denying the past services rendered by the appellant in the Universities of Pune and Karnataka for the purposes of computing total length of qualifying service for the purpose of pension. He submitted that the past services of the appellant rendered in the Universities of Pune and Karnataka were pensionable and that there is no dispute with regard to the same. He submitted that therefore no distinction could be drawn when there was no break in service and the entire service of the appellant, which otherwise was pensionable, has been continuous. He submitted that the past services of the appellant rendered in the Universities of Pune and Karnataka were pensionable and that there is no dispute with regard to the same. He submitted that therefore no distinction could be drawn when there was no break in service and the entire service of the appellant, which otherwise was pensionable, has been continuous. He relied on the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 for pressing into service his case holding that the Government Resolution would apply to the case of the appellant. 3.1. Mr. Hasurkar further drew support from the judgment in the case of the appellant rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3420 of 1979 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1993 by which the appellant was granted the benefit of pay protection for having rendered services in the earlier universities. He submitted that once pay protection was granted, similar analogy should be drawn for the purposes of pension. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of A.N. Sachdeva vs. Maharishi Dayanand University reported in 2015 (10) SCC 117 . He further relied on the decisions in the case of R.L. Marwaha vs. Union of India [ 1987 (4) SCC 31 ], in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Narendra Bahadur Singh [ 2011 (12) SCC 474 and also in case of Sharadendu Bhushan vs. Nagpur University, Nagpur [1987 (Suppl) SCC 53]. 4. Ms. Aishvarya Gupta, learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the judgment rendered by the Tribunal so confirmed by the learned Single Judge. She relied on the affidavit in reply filed in the petition and submitted that the Tribunal was right in its perception to hold that the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 applied only to the services rendered by a person in grant in aid institute within the State of Gujarat. The connectivity therefore with the past service was only when such past service was rendered within the State of Gujarat and not outside the state. The judgments rendered by this Court in the case of the petitioner as far as pay protection is concerned was only concerning protection of pay for earlier services rendered and not for the purposes of pension. Pay protection automatically would not render the appellant eligible for qualifying his services for pension. The judgments rendered by this Court in the case of the petitioner as far as pay protection is concerned was only concerning protection of pay for earlier services rendered and not for the purposes of pension. Pay protection automatically would not render the appellant eligible for qualifying his services for pension. She however could not dispute the fact that the services of the appellant in the earlier Universities were not pensionable or that the same was continuous without any break. 4.1. Ms. Gupta, learned AGP distinguished the judgment cited by Mr. Hasurkar in the case of A.N. Sachdeva (supra) by suggesting that judgment applied because the services of such an employee were subsequently allocated to the University which is not in the case of the appellant, who had resigned and joined the Gujarat University. She further distinguished the judgment in the case of Narendra Bhadur Singh (supra) by relying on para 9 of the judgment. 4.2. Ms. Gupta relied on the decision of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1156 of 1999 on 01.11.2007 (Premshanker V. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat) by Division Bench of this Court wherein the appellant's request for clubbing his past service as government employee with that of the services rendered as President of the Civil Services Tribunal was rejected. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Division Bench rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 954 of 2013 dated 13.09.2013 (State of Gujarat and Others vs. Shrinivas Shaker Bhagade and Another) wherein in an identical case of an employee for considering his past service for pension in the State of Maharashtra was rejected. She extensively relied on the resolutions dated 15.10.1984 and 26.09.1989 contending that these Government Resolutions applied only to employees of State of Gujarat. 5. Having considered and noted the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on the perusal of the service details of the appellant, what is evident is that the appellant had rendered continuous service without any break in three spells i.e. from October 1960 to September 1971 as an Assistant Professor in English in Government Polytechnic, Pune. From September 1971 to September 1977 in the Karnataka University and thereafter from September 1977 till the date of superannuation i.e. 30.08.2000 as Professor with Gujarat University. 6. From September 1971 to September 1977 in the Karnataka University and thereafter from September 1977 till the date of superannuation i.e. 30.08.2000 as Professor with Gujarat University. 6. The appellant was constrained to approach this Court on his appointment as Professor with the Gujarat University by filing Special Civil Application No. 3420 of 1979, because his basic salary in the pay scale of Professor in English was fixed at Rs. 1560/- in the scale of Rs. 1500-1800-2500, whereas while he was rendering his services as Reader in the Karnataka University he was drawing salary of Rs. 1870/- in the pay scale of 1200-1900. He therefore made an application for protection of his salary which was rejected and hence the petition was filed. In the context of the prayer made in the said petition, the learned Single Judge (Coram : S.B. Majmudar, J.) having considered the submissions held as under: "I may also mention one submission put forward by Mr. Shelat. He submitted that the petitioner's case cannot be compared with the case of other university teachers who were appointed either as lecturers or readers or professors in the university by protecting their pay drawn as they all came from who were appointed either as lecturers or readers or professors in the university by protecting their last pay drawn as they all came from colleges or institutions affiliated to or run by universities in Gujarat; while the petitioner was coming from outside Gujarat. In my view, such type of distinction cannot be sustained on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It must be kept in view that the petitioner's grievance is that after he entered the service of the respondent - university as professor and when the question of protecting his last pay arose and when similar questions were raised by other teachers of the university who were recruited on the university staff in different institutions directly run by the university, they all formed one class and the fact whether they came from any of the outside colleges in Gujarat State or any college outside Gujarat would be totally irrelevant. The source from which they were drawn would lose its birth mark moment they all were recruited as teachers in the university and were made university employees. The source from which they were drawn would lose its birth mark moment they all were recruited as teachers in the university and were made university employees. Thereafter when the question arose about protecting their last pay drawn by them outside the university campus, that had to be resolved uniformly by giving equal treatment to all university employees similarly situated. The petitioner was also one of such employees. It is also easy to visualise that the question whether before the petitioner became the university employee, he was working as reader in Karnataka University or in Gujarat University or in any other University in the State of Gujarat would pale into insignificance as 11 the teachers appointed in the University service are citizens of India and the University being 'State' within Article 12 of the Constitution of India was required to meet out to them uniform equal treatment without adopting any discriminatory approach especially when Sen commission recommendations for revising pay scales of lecturers, readers and professors have universal application throughout India. The contention of Mr. Shelat, therefore, that the petitioner formed a separate class as compared to others or that the petitioner should be treated as outsider as compared to other University teachers who are insiders, cannot be sustained and such defence cannot be said to be based on any reasonable classification having any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Such classification is not countenanced by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [Emphasis Supplied] 6.1. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by way of an appeal by the University which also failed. Reading of these two judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge as well as in the appeal, though they are in the context of pay protection for the past services rendered by the appellant, it is categorically observed in the aforesaid judgment that the distinction drawn by the University of University Teachers who were appointed as Lecturers or Readers from Universities within State of Gujarat could not be compared to the appellant who was coming from outside Gujarat was not accepted. The Court categorically held that such a type of distinction cannot be sustained on the touchstone of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The source from which they were drawn could lose its birthmark the moment they were all recruited as teachers in the University and were made University employees. 6.2. The Court categorically held that such a type of distinction cannot be sustained on the touchstone of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The source from which they were drawn could lose its birthmark the moment they were all recruited as teachers in the University and were made University employees. 6.2. It will be worthwhile to quote the observations of the Division Bench rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1993 which read as under: "Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned counsel for the respondents/appellants herein, wants us not to accept the decision of the learned Single Judge and deny the petitioner the benefit accorded to him by the learned Single Judge, by allowing this Letters Patent Appeal. What the learned advocate for the respondent would urge is that, the petitioner could only be treated on par with the Professors in the University and he could not fare better than them and this is the criterion, which weighed with the respondents in fixing the basic salary of the petitioner at Rs. 1560/-. We are not able to appreciate and accept this line of thinking on the part of the learned counsel for the respondents. The reason is simple. Though the petitioner may be a Professor working with the 1st respondent - University after his appointment, yet, he is one, who has come from outside the 1st respondent - University and sought employment there. There were other teacher personnel who were similarly placed. Rightly, a policy decision was taken, as reflected in the two resolutions, saying that the last pay scale drawn by such teaching personnel should be taken note of to fit them in the pay scale. Such teaching personnel go by a class and the policy decision having been taken to protect their pay scale, as a class, there is no warrant to take the petitioner out of that class and treat him differently. Here, the criterion to be settled is with reference to how the teaching personnel, who have been drafted in from outside the 1st respondent - University and who have been drawing a particular pay scale at the time of their getting drafted in the 1st respondent - University should be treated in the matter of fixation of their pay scales. There cannot be any discrimination between them since they are treated as a class by the policy decision. There cannot be any discrimination between them since they are treated as a class by the policy decision. Even if it is a question of any disparity creeping in amongst the Professors, that has been adequately taken care of by the learned Single Judge, as per our discussion supra. Thus, we find that the learned Single Judge rightly held that an element of discrimination which comes within the vice of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, has crept in and that has got to be eliminated. Thus, eliminating the discrimination, the learned Single Judge did the right thing in according the reliefs as noted above. There is apprehension expressed by Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned counsel for the respondents that there is a likelihood of other personnel, like the petitioner, clamouring for the same treatment. We are not concerned with the case of other personnel. The two Resolutions have spoken on the point in favour of the petitioner. If it is now the will of the respondents into to accord benefits to personnel drafting in from outside the 1st respondent-University, it is for them to take care of that in future, and we have nothing to say on this question at this juncture. Thus, we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal. We make no order as to costs." [Emphasis Supplied] 7. What is evident therefore is that once the appellant was appointed from 01.09.1977 as a Professor with the Gujarat University, and was granted the benefit of pay protection based on a categorical finding of this Court so confirmed by the Division Bench holding that the source from which the appellant was drawn would lose its birth mark the moment he was recruited as a teacher in the University will apply on all fours to the appellant even in the case while computing his total length of service for the purpose of pension. 8. The question whether the appellant was working with the University of Karnataka or as an academician in the Pune University or in any other University in the State of Gujarat would pale into insignificance. The distinction drawn by Ms. Gupta based on the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 would amount to treating the appellant as an outsider/insider which cannot be sustained as it is not based on any reasonable classification having any rationale nexus with the object to be achieved. 9. The distinction drawn by Ms. Gupta based on the Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 would amount to treating the appellant as an outsider/insider which cannot be sustained as it is not based on any reasonable classification having any rationale nexus with the object to be achieved. 9. Even if the resolutions of the Government of Gujarat dated 15.10.1984 is closely perused, for the purposes of this resolution clause 2(b) reads as under: "(2) A non-government College includes non-government affiliated Arts, Science, Commerce and B.Ed. Colleges receiving grant-in-aid and managed by the private body and affiliated with the universities by the competent authority b) for the purpose of pensionable pay, pay means and includes: (1) Pay in the approved prescribed scale of pay. 9.1. Reading of the above would make it evident that for the purpose of pensionable pay, pay means and includes Pay in the approved prescribed scale of pay. The contention therefore of Ms. Gupta, learned Assistant Government Pleader that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the petition regarding pay protection will be limited to such extent only fails when the spirit of the resolution for the purposes of fixation of pension is seen. When pension has to be fixed on the basis of pensionable pay, the principle of pay protection granted to the appellant on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 would automatically extend to the appellant for the purpose of counting his past services in the universities of Pune and Karnataka for the purpose of completing total qualifying service for pension. 9.2. Even the resolution mentions in clause 3 as 'Staff Recruited' would mean that the appellant's recruitment in the University would also include extension of the benefit of past services as so categorically granted by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench in the case of pay fixation wherein this Court has categorically observed that the source from which the appellant was drawn would lose its birth mark the moment he is recruited in the University and is made a University employee. 9.3. As far as Ms. Gupta's reliance on the decision in the case of Prem Shankar Bhatt (supra) is concerned, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. 9.3. As far as Ms. Gupta's reliance on the decision in the case of Prem Shankar Bhatt (supra) is concerned, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the case of Prem Shankar Bhatt (supra) it was the case of the appellant that his services as a government servant be clubbed together with the subsequent service rendered by him as a member of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal. However, in the facts of the case what the appellant is requesting is that his continuous service with the University be counted for the purposes of computing total length of service for pension. 9.4. As far as the Division Bench judgment cited by Ms. Gupta in the case of Shrinivas Shanker Bhagade (supra) is concerned, the same is also not applicable on the facts of the present case because the point in issue there was to club the past service with the present service rendered in the latter half period of service tenure of the employee as otherwise his total service was falling short of qualifying service for the purpose of pension. 10. We therefore see no reason why the appellant cannot be extended the benefit of his services rendered for the period from October 1960 to September 1961 in the University of Pune and for the period from September 1971 to September 1977 in the University of Karnataka, both Universities established by law, for the purpose of computation of pension and pensionary benefits in addition to his services rendered in the Gujarat University for the period from 26.09.1977 to 31.08.2000. Moreover, as contended, the services rendered by the appellant in both the Universities i.e. Universities of Karnataka and Pune were pensionable and nothing contrary is brought on record. 11. We accordingly allow the appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.01.2019 and direct the respondents to count the services rendered by the appellant in the Universities of Pune and Karnataka for the purposes of computation of pension and pensionary benefits in addition to the services rendered with the Gujarat University. 11. We accordingly allow the appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.01.2019 and direct the respondents to count the services rendered by the appellant in the Universities of Pune and Karnataka for the purposes of computation of pension and pensionary benefits in addition to the services rendered with the Gujarat University. Looking to the age of the appellant, the respondents shall comply with the directions issued and refix the pension of the appellant and revise the pensionary benefits and make the necessary payments within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this Court. No costs.