JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr.B.P.Sahu, learned senior counsel for the appellant; Mr.S. Suresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India; and Mr.M.Devananda, learned counsel, assisted by Mr.K.Doungel, Deputy Director (Admn.), RIMS, Imphal, and Mr.Santosh Achom, L.D.C., RIMS, Imphal. 2. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(C) No.208 of 2020 is the appellant. Her challenge in the said writ petition was to the order dated 01.05.2020 issued by the Deputy Director (Admn.), Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, Manipur. By order dated 22.07.2020, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition. As a result, the services of the appellant as the Professor-cum-Principal of the College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal, were terminated w.e.f. 30.04.2020, vide order dated 27.07.2020 issued by the Director, RIMS, Imphal. 3. By interim order dated 25.03.2021 passed in M.C(W.A) No. 52 of 2020 filed in this appeal, this Court directed the respondents not to fill up the post of Professor-cum-Principal of the Nursing College, RIMS, Imphal. 4. The appellant entered the service of the RIMS, Imphal, after due selection, as the Professor-cum-Principal of its College of Nursing at Imphal on 25.03.2013. While so, she attained the age of 60 years on 30.04.2020. Thereupon, the order dated 01.05.2020, impugned in the writ petition, came to be issued by the Deputy Director (Admn.), RIMS, Imphal, stating as under:- ‘No.B/1682/2019-RIMS : 5596 With immediate effect and until further orders, Prof. Heman Jamuna Devi, Principal, College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal, on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.04.2020 will function as faculty member till she attains the age of 65 years in terms of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Nursing Section) Order No.Z.28015/27/2007-N dated 28th June, 2010 read with F.R. 56 (bbb). 2. Her continuation of service as faculty member, College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal is subject to the final decision of the Ministry in the matter and excess payment to her, if any, shall be refunded to the institute by her either by adjustment against future payments due to her or otherwise. 3. This has the approval of the Director, RIMS, Imphal.’ 5. Aggrieved by the aforestated order, the appellant filed the subject writ petition. Her claim therein was that she had been downgraded/degraded to the post of faculty member by the said order without any reason and without following any procedure. 3. This has the approval of the Director, RIMS, Imphal.’ 5. Aggrieved by the aforestated order, the appellant filed the subject writ petition. Her claim therein was that she had been downgraded/degraded to the post of faculty member by the said order without any reason and without following any procedure. She asserted that the age of superannuation of nursing teaching faculty had been enhanced from 60 to 65 years and therefore, the order of demotion was illegal and malafide. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the RIMS, Imphal, through Mr.K.Doungel, its Deputy Director (Admn.).Therein, he stated that Bye-law 8 of the Bye-Laws of the RIMS, Imphal, provided that the age of superannuation of employees would be governed by the rules framed or orders issued by the Central Government and, in this connection, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, vide order dated 28.06.2010, had stated that the age of superannuation of nursing teaching faculty with M.Sc. in Nursing in Central Government nursing institutions was enhanced from 60 years to 65 years, subject to the condition that such nurses continued to function as faculty members after the age of 60 years. The Deputy Director further stated that as the appellant was holding the post of Professor-cum-Principal, College of Nursing, and had completed the age of 60 years on 30.04.2020, the RIMS, Imphal, extended her age of superannuation from 60 years to 65 years as a faculty member, by the order dated 01.05.2020, in compliance with its Bye-Laws and the order of the Central Government. He went on to state the appellant would continue to function as a faculty member in the rank and pay of Professor in the College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal. He asserted that the instructions of the Central Government explicitly mentioned that the retirement age can be enhanced to 65 years subject to the condition that nursing teaching faculty continue to function as faculty members only after the age of 60 years. He stated that the appellant therefore had no option but to avail the benefit of the enhanced retirement age of 65 years only as a faculty member or else retire upon attaining the age of 60 years. He accordingly denied her claim that she had been downgraded/degraded in service by way of the said order. 7. He stated that the appellant therefore had no option but to avail the benefit of the enhanced retirement age of 65 years only as a faculty member or else retire upon attaining the age of 60 years. He accordingly denied her claim that she had been downgraded/degraded in service by way of the said order. 7. Significantly, the Deputy Director admitted in effect that the College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal, did not have any separate Bye-Laws and was bound by the Bye-Laws of the RIMS, Imphal, an autonomous Institute under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 8. In her rejoinder to the above affidavit-in-opposition, the appellant asserted that the post of Professor-cum-Principal of the College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal, was a teaching faculty post and relied upon the letter dated 05.11.2009 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. She claimed that she had a right to continue in the said post till she attained the age of 65 years as per the Central Government’s order dated 28.06.2010. 9. Be it noted that the Union of India did not file any affidavit-in-opposition at that stage. However, it chose to address certain letters, which were produced before the learned Judge on 22.07.2020 at the time of hearing of the writ petition. One such letter dated 20.07.2020 was addressed to Mr.S.Suresh, learned ASG, by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (N.E.Section), Government of India. This letter stated that the order dated 28.06.2010 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, enhancing the age of superannuation of nursing teaching faculty with M.Sc. in Nursing from 60 to 65 years was not applicable to institutions of autonomous organizations like RIMS. He went on to state that the matter relating to enhancing the age of superannuation of nursing teaching faculty to 65 years in RIMS was under consideration in the Ministry. The Under Secretary concluded by stating that as and when a decision was taken in the matter, it would have prospective effect and could not be extended to the appellant, who had reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020. The other letter dated 20.7.2020 was produced before the learned Judge by Mr. M.Devananda, learned counsel for the RIMS, Imphal, and it was addressed by the same Under Secretary to the Director, RIMS, Imphal. The other letter dated 20.7.2020 was produced before the learned Judge by Mr. M.Devananda, learned counsel for the RIMS, Imphal, and it was addressed by the same Under Secretary to the Director, RIMS, Imphal. Therein, he referred to the Director’s e-mail dated 17.07.2020 on the subject of W.P(C) No. 208 of 2020 filed by the appellant and stated that as per the Ministry’s letter dated 05.11.2009, the post of Professor-cum-Principal was a faculty post and the averment that it was not a faculty post would not be tenable before the Court. He then stated on the same lines as in the other letter with regard to the order dated 28.06.2010 of the Government of India. According to him, the RIMS, Imphal, had allowed the appellant to function as faculty till she attained the age of 65 years in terms of the order dated 28.06.2010, by way of the order dated 01.05.2020, but this was done without the approval of the Ministry. He therefore advised that her engagement should be discontinued forthwith. These facts were directed to be incorporated in the counter/reply to be filed before this Court. However, as already stated supra, no separate counter was filed by the Union of India in the writ petition, but upon production of the aforestated letters the learned Judge recorded the opinion that the letters dated 20.07.2020 clearly indicated that enhancement of the age of superannuation of nursing teaching faculty in the RIMS, Imphal, was still under consideration before the Ministry and that the Central Government’s order dated 28.06.2010 was applicable to Central Government nursing institutions and was not automatically applicable to institutions of autonomous organizations like RIMS. The learned Judge thereupon concluded that the order dated 01.05.2020 issued by the RIMS, Imphal, allowing the appellant to function as faculty till she attained the age of 65 years was without basis and dismissed the writ petition. 10. At this stage, it may be noted that, by its order dated 01.05.2020, the RIMS, Imphal, had allowed the appellant to continue as faculty till she attained the age of 65 years. The stand of the RIMS, Imphal, was that she was not entitled to continue as the Principal of the College of Nursing but she could continue only as faculty. The stand of the RIMS, Imphal, was that she was not entitled to continue as the Principal of the College of Nursing but she could continue only as faculty. However, owing to the order passed by the learned Judge with the observations noted hereinbefore, the appellant was divested of her right to continue as faculty also. In effect, by approaching this Court, she suffered an order that placed her in a worse position than she was hitherto. Her challenge to the order dated 01.05.2020 actually succeeded as the learned Judge set it aside but the dismissal of her writ petition, while accepting her prayer, compounded by the opinion expressed therein that she was not entitled to function as faculty till she attained the age of 65 years, practically sealed her fate. In consequence, by order dated 27.07.2020, the Director, RIMS, Imphal, allowed the appellant to retire from the service of the RIMS, Imphal, on attaining the age of superannuation and terminated her services w.e.f. 30.04.2020. 11. It would now be apposite to note certain fundamental facts germane to this adjudication. The RIMS, Imphal, is an autonomous Institute wholly funded by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. It was registered as a society in the year 2007 with its office at Lamphelpat, Imphal, State of Manipur. Clause IV of its Memorandum of Association provides that the overall management of the Institute was entrusted to i) The Board of Governors, headed by the Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare, and ii) The Executive Council, headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. The constitution and members of the Board of Governors and of the Executive Council, set out thereunder, indicate that these bodies were to be manned by high-ranking Central and State Government officials. The Rules and Regulations of the RIMS, Imphal, were also framed on the same lines, indicating that the Board of Governors and the Executive Council, apart from the committees appointed by the Board of Governors or the Executive Council, would be the authorities of the Institute. Clause 8 of the Rules and Regulations deals with the Executive Council. Clause 8 (iii) states that the management and administration of the Institute would vest in the Executive Council, which would have the powers and functions enumerated under sub-clauses (a) to (m) thereof. Clause 8 of the Rules and Regulations deals with the Executive Council. Clause 8 (iii) states that the management and administration of the Institute would vest in the Executive Council, which would have the powers and functions enumerated under sub-clauses (a) to (m) thereof. Sub-clause (a) empowers the Executive Council to supervise the overall administration and management of the Institute while sub-clause (b) empowers it to consider and approve budget estimates, including revised and supplementary expenditure recommended by the Finance Committee and to apprise the same to the Board of Governors. Sub-clause (c) provides that the Executive Council has the power to consider and approve creation, upgradation and abolition of posts apart from revision of pay scales and allowances, in the light of the recommendations of the Finance Committee. Sub-clause (d) empowers it to consider all proposals for expenditure, beyond the powers delegated to the Director. Sub-clause (j) empowers the Executive Council to frame bye-laws and procedures for conduct of the affairs of the Institute. Significantly, none of the aforestated sub-clauses required any of the decisions of the Executive Council thereunder to be vetted or approved by the Government of India. On the other hand, only sub-clause (m), which empowers the Executive Council to amend the bye-laws, rules and regulations of the Institute, requires prior concurrence of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Therefore, this is the only area where the Government of India directly plays a role, in so far as the Executive Council’s decisions are concerned. 12. In exercise of the power conferred by Clause 8(j) above, the ‘Bye-Laws of the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), 2007’ were framed. Bye-law 8, already referred to in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the RIMS, Imphal, deals with superannuation and it provides as follows:- “The age of the superannuation of the employees shall be governed by the rules framed or orders issued from time to time in this regard by the Central Government. Orders issued by the Institute in pursuance of such Rules or Orders of the Central Government shall continue to be enforced until the same is superseded by an order issued under this provision of the Bye-Law.” In effect, unless specifically superseded by a separate order, the age of superannuation of the employees of the RIMS, Imphal, is directly governed by the rule framed or order issued by the Central Government in that regard. It is in this context that the order dated 28.06.2010 issued by the Central Government assumes significance. By the said order, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Nursing Section), Government of India, enhanced the age of superannuation of nursing teaching faculty with M.Sc. in Nursing in Central Government nursing institutions from 60 to 65 years, subject to the condition that these nurses continue to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. The order further recorded that the Department of Personnel & Training should issue a necessary notification under the provisions of the Fundamental Rules. In consequence, Fundamental Rule 56(bbb) was inserted, providing to the same effect. All that was required thereafter, under Bye-law 8, was that the RIMS, Imphal, issue an order pursuant to the Central Government’s order, fixing the age of superannuation of its employees who were covered thereby. However, the Executive Council of RIMS, Imphal, passed a separate resolution in that regard at its 48th meeting held on 15.05.2019. One of the agenda items before the Executive Council at the said meeting was ‘Age of superannuation of faculty for College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal’. The resolution passed by the Council reads as follows: ‘The Council considered and approved ‘in principle’ the proposal relating to age of superannuation of faculty of College of Nursing, RIMS, Imphal, as per the provisions contained in Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Nursing Section) order No. Z.28015/27/2007-N dated 28.06.2010, with immediate effect. RIMS may send proposal for consideration and approval in the Ministry’. Pursuant thereto, the RIMS, Imphal, issued a Press Release on 15.05.2019, notifying the public at large to that effect. 13. As stated supra, this resolution was a superfluity as Bye-law 8 made the Central Government’s order dated 28.06.2010 automatically applicable and all that was needed was an implementing order to that effect only by the RIMS, Imphal, and nothing more. That apart, as already noted supra, the role to be played by the Government of India in the affairs of the RIMS is limited, in the context of the Memorandum of Association, Bye-laws and the Rules and Regulations of the RIMS, Imphal, and no approval was necessary from the Government of India in relation to the age of superannuation of employees, which already stood determined under Bye-law 8 read with the applicable order of the Central Government. Therefore, the very exercise initiated by the RIMS, Imphal, in passing a separate resolution and seeking approval thereof from the Government of India was redundant and completely unnecessary. However, unmindful of the same, it appears that the Government of India also took up the issue in all seriousness and addressed the aforestated letters to the effect that the appellant would not be entitled to continue in service by virtue of the Central Government’s order dated 28.06.2010. These communications obviously proceeded in clear ignorance of Bye-law 8 of the Bye-laws of the RIMS, Imphal, which gave automatic primacy to such order of the Central Government. 14. At this stage, it may also be noted that after the RIMS, Imphal, established its College of Nursing, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (N.E.Division), Government of India, addressed letter dated 05.11.2009 to the Director, RIMS, Imphal, conveying approval for creation of faculty and non-faculty posts. The faculty posts so created were: one post of Professor-cum-Principal, one post of Professor-cum-Vice Principal, one post of Associate Professor, five posts of Lecturers and fourteen posts of Tutors. The non-faculty posts created thereby were: one post of Administrative Officer, one post of P.A. to Principal, one post of Section Officer, two posts of UDC, one post of daftry/store keeper and the posts of Lower Division Clerk and Grade IV were directed to be outsourced. The appellant was appointed to the sanctioned post of Professor-cum-Principal after due selection in the year 2013. She was therefore holding a faculty post and in terms of Bye-law 8 read with the Central Government’s order dated 28.06.2010 and the Press Release of the RIMS, Imphal, implementing the same, she is to retire only upon attaining the enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years. 15. It may be noted at this stage that by letter dated 11.09.2020 addressed to the Director, RIMS, Imphal, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (N.E.Section), Government of India, did convey the approval of the competent authority to enhancement of the age of superannuation of nursing faculty with M.Sc. in Nursing in the RIMS, Imphal, from 60 to 65 years, subject to the condition that these nurses continued to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. He further stated that the said provision would be applicable from the date of issuance of the letter. in Nursing in the RIMS, Imphal, from 60 to 65 years, subject to the condition that these nurses continued to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. He further stated that the said provision would be applicable from the date of issuance of the letter. This exercise was without purpose as Bye-law 8 automatically made applicable the Central Government’s order dated 28.06.2010 to the Institute and did not require either a separate resolution by the Executive Council of the RIMS, Imphal, or the approval thereof by the Government of India. 16. Total non-application of mind at all levels is therefore clearly manifest and unfortunately so, to the detriment of the appellant. Non-application of mind by the RIMS, Imphal, in the first instance, is patent and extraordinary, to say the least. There was absolutely no logic or rationale in its order dated 01.05.2020, whereby it sought to extend the services of the appellant as faculty till the age of 65 years while holding to the effect that she could not continue as the Principal of the College. It seems to have been completely unmindful that the sanctioned faculty posts, already set out in detail hereinbefore, did not include an individual post of Professor and the appellant could not have been continued till 65 years without such a post. Surprisingly, in the affidavit-in-opposition, the RIMS, Imphal, stated that she would continue to function as a faculty member in ‘the rank and pay of Professor’ in the College, without even realizing that there was no such post available, as the only sanctioned post was that of Professor-cum-Principal! That apart, the stance of the RIMS, Imphal, that the import of the Central Government’s order dated 28.06.2010 is that the age of superannuation was enhanced, only for the purpose of continuing as faculty, is utterly incomprehensible. The order merely stated that the age of superannuation of the nursing teaching faculty with M.Sc. in Nursing stood enhanced to 65 years and the condition imposed to avail that benefit was that such nurses should continue to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. Therefore, they were to continue as nurses and also as faculty. The order merely stated that the age of superannuation of the nursing teaching faculty with M.Sc. in Nursing stood enhanced to 65 years and the condition imposed to avail that benefit was that such nurses should continue to function as faculty after the age of 60 years. Therefore, they were to continue as nurses and also as faculty. That condition had no application to the appellant as she held the faculty post of Professor-cum-Principal and was bound to continue as faculty even after availing the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation under the Central Government’s order dated 28.06.2010. Further, the contention that the RIMS, Imphal, had to seek approval from the Government of India due to financial implications needs mention only to be rejected. The Executive Council of the RIMS, Imphal, as already noted supra, was empowered to create posts and revise pay scales apart from budgeting and incurring expenditure, without approval from the Government of India, and there is no logic or reason in the RIMS, Imphal, claiming that mere implementation of Bye-law 8 warranted such approval. All the more so, when it is an autonomous body! 17. At the very first hearing of this appeal on 04.09.2020, this Court noted that no affidavit had been filed by the Union of India before the learned Judge and that the letter dated 20.07.2020 and its contents needed to be clarified. The matter was accordingly adjourned, granting the Union of India an opportunity to file a proper affidavit explaining the correct legal and factual position in respect of the said letter and the facts of the case. The matter thereafter underwent five adjournments before this judgment was reserved. Despite the same, the Union of India did not choose to file an affidavit. However, on the date of the last hearing, viz., 17.04.2021, Mr.S.Suresh, learned ASG, produced a copy of the order dated 29.03.2007 issued by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region, Government of India, recording that sanction had been conveyed by the competent authority transferring RIMS, Imphal, from the North Eastern Council, Shillong, to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, with effect from 01.04.2007, on the terms and conditions detailed thereunder. This document obviously preceded the registration of the RIMS, Imphal, as an autonomous society. This document obviously preceded the registration of the RIMS, Imphal, as an autonomous society. However, this document also does not indicate any necessity of Government of India’s approval being obtained for each and every policy decision of the RIMS, Imphal. Be it noted that Clause (vii) of the terms and conditions mentioned in this order states that the existing two-tier management structure should be retained to maintain autonomy of the Institute. As already noted, the two-tier structure retained under the Bye-Laws and the Rules and Regulations of the RIMS, Imphal, is through the Board of Governors and the Executive Council. No other document has been placed on record to indicate that such two-tiered management structure involved the Government of India at every stage of the functioning of the RIMS, Imphal. Further, the practice adopted by the learned counsel appearing in this Court for the Union of India in producing documents without a supporting affidavit, and without even making known its stand through a counter, needs to be decried in no uncertain terms. It is indeed unfortunate that despite this matter being taken up at the appeal stage and despite several opportunities being given to the Union of India to come forward with its stand, it chose to remain silent but seeks to justify its interference in the functioning of this autonomous body by producing irrelevant documents. We need say no more. 18. On the above analysis, this Court finds that the understanding of the RIMS, Imphal, that the appellant could only be continued as faculty after attaining the age of 65 years and not against the faculty post of Professor-cum-Principal of the College is unsustainable on facts and in law. Further, the order dated 01.05.2020 was without any foundation as the age of superannuation of the appellant already stood enhanced to 65 years by virtue of Bye-law 8 read with the Central Government’s order dated 28.06.2010 and the decision of the RIMS, Imphal, implementing the same. It needed no further resolution to that effect by the Executive Council or the Central Government’s approval thereof. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed making this position clear and setting aside the consequential order dated 27.07.2020 issued by the RIMS, Imphal, against the appellant. The RIMS, Imphal, is directed to reinstate her in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. It needed no further resolution to that effect by the Executive Council or the Central Government’s approval thereof. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed making this position clear and setting aside the consequential order dated 27.07.2020 issued by the RIMS, Imphal, against the appellant. The RIMS, Imphal, is directed to reinstate her in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. In the light of this final order, no further order needs to be passed in M.C(W.A) No. 52 of 2020, which is accordingly closed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.