JUDGMENT : Heard learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.M.B.Rana for the respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave or the respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for the respondent No.3 thorough video conference. 1. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya has tendered a draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. As the controversy raised in this petition is in very narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) hold and declare that petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years as per Office Memorandum dated 30.5.1998 and the Board’s decision taken in the meeting of 16.10.2015 as reflected in Circular dated 18/19.3.2016, (B) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to retire the petitioner from service on her attaining the age of 58 years and continue her in service till she attains the age of 60 years in view of Office Memorandum dated 30.5.1998 and the Board’s decision taken in the meeting of 16.10.2015 as reflected in Circular dated 18/19.3.2016 and grant all other consequential benefits, or in the alternative (C) direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years and grant all other consequential benefits, and award the cost of the present petition, and (D) award the cost of the present petition, and (E) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from retiring the petitioner from service on her attainment of 58 years and to continue her in service till she attains 60 years of age on any terms and conditions that the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper, and/ or (F) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to consider the reply of proposal given by the Res. No. 2 on 16.1.2017 and take appropriate action regarding raising the age of superannuation of non-teaching staff of I.P.G.T.&R.A. of Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar from 58 years to 60 years forthwith in view of proposal dated 14.8.2017, and/ or (G) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The petitioner has mainly prayed for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years as according to the petitioner who is discharging the duties of non-teaching staff with the respondent No.1-Institute was having the superannuation age of 58 years and not 60 years contrary to the Central Government Office Memorandum and Department Notification No.25012/2/97-Esst.(A) dated 13.05.1998 and 27.05.1998 which has amended F.R.56(a) to the effect that except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servants shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1. The respondent No.1 is an autonomous body receiving 100% grant from the Central Government. The petitioner served the respondent No.1 from 06.07.1987 till 30th September, 2017 as non-teaching staff member. 5.2. The respondent No.1 has time and again made proposal before the Central Government for increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years of non-teaching staff at par with teaching staff of the respondent No.1. The petitioner was also granted the benefit of sixth pay commission and increment as per the Central Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. 5.3. The respondent No.1 did not get any approval or sanction from the Central Government to raise the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years of its non-teaching staff. The petitioner has preferred this petition in the year 2017 before one month of her retirement on attaining age of 58 years. 6.1. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya submitted that the respondent No.1 in its Board meeting held on 16.10.2015 decided to adopt the Central Civil Service Rules of the Government of India and accordingly, Circular was published among the Officers of the respondent No.1 intimating the Board’s decision to apply the rules of Central Government. 6.2. 6.1. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya submitted that the respondent No.1 in its Board meeting held on 16.10.2015 decided to adopt the Central Civil Service Rules of the Government of India and accordingly, Circular was published among the Officers of the respondent No.1 intimating the Board’s decision to apply the rules of Central Government. 6.2. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya further pointed out that the respondent No.1 sent a proposal on 28.10.2016 to the Ministry of Ayush to raise the superannuation age from 58 to 60 years of non-teaching staff followed by reminder dated 30.12.2016. Reference was made to the reply of the Central Government dated 16.01.2017 wherein, it is stated that the proposal sent by the respondent No.1 can be considered in consultation with the Department of Personnel Training when the Government of Gujarat formally entrusts the administrative control of its non-teaching staff Group ‘A’,’B’ and ‘C’ employees to the Ministry and the Central Government Rules are made applicable to them. 6.3. Referring to the aforesaid communication dated 16.01.2017 it was submitted that again a proposal was sent by the respondent No.1 on 14.08.2017 for granting the approval to enhance the age of superannuation of non-teaching staff on the ground that 100% grant is given by the Central Government and all rules of the Central Government are applicable. It was submitted that meanwhile, the petitioner has superannuated on 30th September, 2017. 6.4. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya referred to the amended petition to point out that the Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayrveda Act, 2020 (for short ‘the Act, 2020’) was passed by the Parliament and as per the said Act, 2020, the age of the non-teaching staff is 60 years and not 58 years. Reference was also made to the letter dated 27th November, 2020 at Annexure-O, page 41/12 to point out that the Central Government has already granted permission to the respondent No.1 to increase the age limit of superannuation of all its employees from 58 to 60 years. 6.5. It was therefore prayed that the petitioner is entitled to the arrears as well as the pensionary benefits as if the petitioner has rendered the services up to 60 years. 7.1. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Rana submitted that the respondent No.1 is governed by the rules, regulations and sanctions of the Central Government as it receives 100% grant from the Central Government. 7.1. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Rana submitted that the respondent No.1 is governed by the rules, regulations and sanctions of the Central Government as it receives 100% grant from the Central Government. Learned advocate Mr.Rana referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 to the effect that the respondent No.1-University has to follow the policy decisions and applicable rules and regulations of the Central Government as it is fully funded by the Central Government and therefore the Policy decisions regarding the enhancement of age of superannuation can only be taken by the Government of India. It was submitted that the Central Government enhanced the age of superannuation for teaching staff by Circular dated 8th October, 1999 and thereafter it was increased to 62 years. It was therefore submitted that unless and until the Central Government grants permission to the respondent No.1 to increase the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years, respondent No.1 is not in position to grant any benefit to the petitioner. 7.2. It was submitted that as the Central Government has not granted any permission to increase the superannuation age to the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation at par with the teaching staff. 7.3. Learned advocate Mr.Rana also relied upon the clause (d) of Section 5 of the Act, 2020 to submit that it is provided under Section 5 that on and from commencement of this Act what would be the situation of the persons who are already employed with the respondent No.1. It was submitted that as per clause (d) of Section 5 the same terms and conditions which were prevailing at the time when the persons were employed would be governed and the employees of the respondent No.1 would be governed by the same rules as if the new Act has not come into effect. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner cannot get any advantage of the Act, 2020 as it is prospective in nature and cannot be applicable to the petitioner for extending the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. 8. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner cannot get any advantage of the Act, 2020 as it is prospective in nature and cannot be applicable to the petitioner for extending the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave appearing for learned Additional Solicitor General Mr.Devang Vyas submitted that the Central Government by letter dated 27th November, 2020 has made explicitly clear that FR 56(a) would be applicable even in case of all the employees of the Central Government who attain the age of superannuation at 60 years and it is also made clear in the letter dated 27th November, 2020 which is written in reply to the letter dated 24.11.2020 of the respondent No.1 to point out that since the regulation regarding the service conditions of the respondent No.1 have not been finalized so far approval of the Ministry of Ayush is conveyed to make applicable FR 56(a) to the employees of the respondent No.1 as in the case of employees of the other autonomous bodies under the said Ministry and enhance the retirement age of non-teaching staff of the respondent No.1 from 58 years to 60 years. 9. Learned advocate Mr.Antani referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 and submitted that the respondent No.3-State Government has nothing to do with the controversy and has made the position of the State Government very clear by the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply : “8. It is submitted that the institute where the petitioner is serving is fully funded and aided by the Central Government and rules and regulation of the Central Government are applicable on the said institute running under the Gujarat Ayurvedic University at Jamnagar. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Junior Clerk-cum- Typist and joined the duty on 06.07.1987. She joined the duty on 11.06.1987. The petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 04.06.1998. Subsequently, she came to be promoted as the Head Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 on 02/05.07.2004. The Petitioner is superannuated. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner had prayed for enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. The petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 04.06.1998. Subsequently, she came to be promoted as the Head Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000 on 02/05.07.2004. The Petitioner is superannuated. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner had prayed for enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. As per Circular of Gujarat Ayurved University dated 18/19.03.2016 the service matter related to IPGT&RA shall apply as per Government of India Rules as decided in the 24% meeting, ef no.17 dated 16.10.2015. The copy of the circular is annexed at page no.28 as Annexure-E to the petition. 11. It is submitted that Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamanagar issued a circular dated 18/31.03.2016, It is decided to take all service matter as per Central Service Rules of Government of jndia for employees of IPGT&RA with effect from 01.04.2016 except superannuation age as decided in the 24th meeting of the Board, IPGT&RA held on 16.10.2015 the copy of the circular dated 18/31.03.2016 is already annexed as Annexure-F as page 29 of the petition. A representation came to be made to the Central Government, Ministry of Ayush, Government of India by communication dated 24/28.10.2016 for raising the superannuation age of non-teaching staff of IPGT&RA Jamnagar from 58 to 60 years for Group A, B and C employees. The copy of the said letter forwarded by the Director is annexed at page no. 30 and 31 as ANNEXURE - G to the petition. The representations came to be turned down by the Government of India / Ministry of Ayush by Communication dated 16.01.2017 on the ground that the Proposal can be processed in consultation with Department of Personnel and Training only when the Government of Gujarat formally entrusts the Administrative Control of its nonteaching staff, Group A, B and C employees to the ministry at delhi and the Central Government Rules are made applicable to them. The copy of the communication dated 16.01.2017 is annexed along with the memorandum of the petition at page no. 32 as ANNEXURE - I to the petition. 12. I respectfully say and submit that only rules and regulation of she Government of Gujarat are applicable to the petitioner for administrative purposes and Government of Gujarat has not entrusted administrative control of its non-teaching group A, B and C employees of IPGT&RA to the Central Government. 32 as ANNEXURE - I to the petition. 12. I respectfully say and submit that only rules and regulation of she Government of Gujarat are applicable to the petitioner for administrative purposes and Government of Gujarat has not entrusted administrative control of its non-teaching group A, B and C employees of IPGT&RA to the Central Government. The institute’s non-teaching staff is governed by the rules of Government of Gujarat and the uniform policy of the State is that the superannuation age will be 58 years for all its Government Employees and therefore the superannuation age of 58 years will be applicable to them. 13. It is submitted that the State Government has no role in the Management or issuance of the grant issued to the IPGT&RA or the university. 14. It is respectfully submitted that the State Government takes a policy decision and fixing the age of superannuation it being a policy decision cannot be applicable to a particular institute or section governed under the rules and administration of the Government. ” 10. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record the short controversy is with regard to extending the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years. The facts are not in dispute as the petitioner was regularly employed with the respondent No.1 and discharged her duties as non-teaching staff from 06.07.1987 to 30.09.2017 and the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years was made to retire in spite of the fact that a proposal sent by the respondent No.1 was pending before the respondent No.2-Central Government for extending the age of superannuation of non-teaching staff from 58 years to 60 years. 11. 11. It is pertinent to take into consideration that the superannuation age is increased from 58 years to 60 years as per the paragraph 128.16 of the report of the 5th Pay Commission which has been accepted by the Central Government and it was decided to increase the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years and accordingly, FR 56 has been amended by notification dated 13.05.1998 and 27.05.1998 and as per the amended notification, the FR 56(a) reads as under : “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years: “Provided further that a Government servant who has attained the age of fifty eight years on or before the first day of May, 1998 and is on extension in service, shall retire from service on expiry of his extended period of service”.” 12. Thus, in view of the above amendment all Central Government employees whether teaching or non-teaching would retire from service on attaining the superannuation age of 60 years. 13. This fact is made explicitly clear in the letter dated 27th November, 2020 written by the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush addressed to the respondent No.1 and therefore it would be germane to refer to the paragraph No.2 thereof, which reads as under : “2. As per FR 56(a) except as otherwise provided in this rule, every government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. Accordingly the retirement age of Central Government employees and employees of the Autonomous Bodies under the Central Government is sixty years. As per Subsection (d) of Section 5 of ITRA Act, every employee shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, remuneration and same terms & conditions and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and terms & conditions are duly altered by regulations. As per Subsection (d) of Section 5 of ITRA Act, every employee shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, remuneration and same terms & conditions and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and terms & conditions are duly altered by regulations. Since the regulations regarding the service conditions of TRA have not been finalized so far, approval of MoS(I/C) (AYUSH) is hereby conveyed to make applicable FR 56 (a) to the employees of ITRA as in the case of employees of other autonomous bodies under this Ministry and enhance the retirement age of non-teaching staff of ITRA from 58 years to 60 years” 14. In view of the above direction conveyed by the Ministry of Ayush to the respondent No.1, there is no scope for the respondent No.1 but to consider the age of superannuation of the petitioner at 60 years and not 58 years and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to receive all the benefits of the services up to the age of 60 years. However, as the petitioner has already retired at the age of superannuation of 58 years the remaining two years of service shall be considered as notional service and the petitioner shall be entitled to get retirement benefits including pension as if the petitioner has retired on 60 years considering the notional service of the petitioner including the increase in pay scale etc., if applicable to the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall recalculate the retirement and pension benefits of the petitioner accordingly and complete such exercise within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and pay the arrears, if any, entitled to be paid to the petitioner within further period of 12 weeks from the date of completion of such exercise. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed for the foregoing reasons. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.