JUDGMENT : 1. Proceedings of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioners-State authorities assailing the judgment and order dated 22.04.2014 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow [herein-after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] in Claim Petition No. 1932 of 2011 whereby the Claim Petition has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the petitioners-State authorities to consider the case of the respondent No. 1/Claimant for grant of time-scale, selection grade, one extra increment on completion of 8, 14 and 19 years of satisfactory regular service according to the rules and various government orders and also to consider his case for revision of pay and benefits of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) as per the recommendation made by the 6th Pay Commission in terms of the Government Order dated 29.08.2012. 2. Heard learned State Counsel representing the petitioners-State authorities and Shri Shireesh Kumar appearing for the respondent No. 1/Claimant and perused the records available before us on this writ petition. 3. Before adverting to the competing submissions made by learned Counsel representing the respective parties, we may note certain facts which are necessary for appropriate adjudication of issues involved in this case. Respondent No. 1/Claimant was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer at Education Television Programme Production Centre, Lucknow in the then existing pay scale of Rs.850-1720 vide appointment order dated 15.04.1986 passed by the Secretary of the department concerned. Respondent No. 1/Claimant continued to work on the said post and vide an order dated 10.07.1998 his services were confirmed on the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 15.04.1987. Having worked in terms of the appointment and confirmation orders as aforesaid, respondent No. 1/Claimant retired on 30.06.2012 and he is being paid provisional pension. 4. Before his retirement, respondent No. 1/Claimant instituted Claim Petition No. 1932 of 2011 under Section 4 of U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 seeking a direction to the petitioners-State authorities to consider his claim in respect of grant of time-scale, selection grade and payment of one additional increment in the selection grade on completion of 8, 14 and 19 years of service respectively. It was further prayed in the claim petition that respondent No. 1/Claimant be also given the benefit of revision of pay on the basis of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 after fixing his pay in the time-scale, selection grade and one additional increment. He had also prayed that on completion of 26 years of service, he also be given the benefit of A.C.P. 5. The claim petition was contested by the petitioners-State authorities, however, on consideration of overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition by means of the judgment and order dated 22.04.2014 and it is this order passed by the learned Tribunal which is under challenge herein in this petition. 6. It is noticeable that though the judgment under challenge in this writ petition was rendered by the learned Tribunal on 22.04.2014, however, the writ petition has been filed with a considerable delay of about 5 years on 22.04.2019. 7. It has been argued by the learned State Counsel that the learned Tribunal has erroneously allowed the claim petition and that, in fact, the Tribunal has failed to consider the actual and real purport of the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 whereby the State Educational Institute of Technology was given the status of government institute and its 61 employees were given the status of government service with a further stipulation therein that all the benefits as are available to government employees will be available to only 61 employees and no one else. 8. The learned State Counsel emphasizing the aforesaid argument further stated that the learned Tribunal has not considered that out of 122 posts in the establishment of the institute on the date of issuance of Government Order dated 29.08.2012, only 61 employees were working against 122 posts and thus the State Government provided the benefit by the said Government Order only to those 61 employees who were working on the date of issuance of Government Order and further provided that remaining posts would stand abolished. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in absence of any challenge to the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 no claim as put forth by the respondent No. 1/claimant could succeed, however, this aspect of the matter has completely been ignored by the Tribunal by passing the judgment and order which is under challenge herein. 9. 9. According to the learned State Counsel, on issuance of the Government Order dated 29.08.20212, in fact the prayers made in the claim petition by the respondent No. 1/Claimant were rendered infructuous and the claim petition itself had lost its efficacy, however, the Tribunal ignoring the aforesaid aspect of the matter proceeded to pass the judgment which cannot be permitted to be sustained. 10. Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 1/Claimant has vehemently opposed the writ petition and has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He has stated further that the claimant/respondent No. 1 has all along been a state government employee and the classification amongst the employees of the institute created by the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 between those who were working on the said posts and those who had retired, does not have any reasonable basis. His submission is that there is no intelligible differentia available with the State-authorities which can justify creation of these two classes of employees on the basis of retired and working employees on the date of issuance of Government Order dated 29.08.2012. It has been attempted to be argued that the institute was never formed as a society, however, documents available on record itself show that though decision was taken to convert the institute into an autonomous society, however, such decision was never implemented. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant has urged that this petition be dismissed outrightly. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 12. The sole ground as urged by the learned counsel for the State in support of the writ petition is that on issuance of the Government Order dated 29.08.2012, the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant had lost its efficacy and was rendered infructuous, however, the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. We thus now consider the provisions of the Government Order 29.08.2012. We thus now consider the provisions of the Government Order 29.08.2012. The said Government Order was issued by the State Government on the subject “in relation to removal of problems relating to service conditions of the employees of the State Educational Technical Institute, U.P. Lucknow.” This Government Order dated 29.08.2012 is available at Page No. 283 of the writ petition which we have carefully perused. The Government Order provides that in compliance of an order passed by this Court dated 02.02.1993 in Writ Petition No. 1020 (SS) of 1993, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 21.06.1993 whereby it was directed that no deduction shall be made from the officers/employees of the institute for leave encashment and for other service benefits. It also refers to a Government Order dated 19.06.2006 according to which the benefit of pension/leave encashment etc. was made available to the employees of the institute at par with such facilities available to the State Government employees for the reason that though the character of the institute was sought to be changed after 1991, however, the said intended change in the character/status of the institute did not actually happened. 13. The Government Order dated 29.08.2012 also provides that the institute shall be a government institute and the employees working therein be granted status of government employees and accordingly, the employees of the institute shall be entitled to all service benefits as are available to State Government employees. It further directed that accordingly, benefit of pay revision on the basis of recommendation of 5th and 6th Pay Commissions be also made available to them. 14. It was also provided by the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 that out of total 122 sanctioned posts only 61 posts against which employees were working on the date of issuance of Government Order shall be continued and rest of the posts would stand abolished. It was also provided that out of 61 posts only important posts would be retained in the institute and rest of unimportant posts would be adjusted elsewhere. 15. It was also provided that out of 61 posts only important posts would be retained in the institute and rest of unimportant posts would be adjusted elsewhere. 15. Thus, as per submission made by the learned State Counsel the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 clearly provided that only 61 employees who were working on the said date i.e. 29.08.2012 in the institute are to be treated as government employees and rest of the employees who had retired before 29.08.2012 cannot be treated as government employees and accordingly the prayers made by the respondent No. 1/claimant before the Tribunal were rendered redundant. 16. If we carefully peruse the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 what we find is that the status of 61 employees who were working on the date of issuance of Government Order dated 29.08.2012 as government employees was recognized for the reason that though in the year 1991 a decision was taken to change the status of the institute from a government institute to a society, however, the said decision was never acted upon. If the decision to change the status of the institute from a government institute to society could never be acted upon, the employees, whether retired or working on the date of issuance of Government Order dated 29.08.2012 will, in our considered opinion form a singular class. We are also of the opinion that any distinction between those who retired from the service of the institute before 29.08.2012 and those who were working on the said date, does not have any reasonable basis. In this regard, we may reiterate that though the State Government in the year 1991 intended to change the character/status of the institute from a government institute to that of a society, however, admittedly [which fact is reflected from a perusal of the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 itself] the said intended decision was never implemented. This would mean that the institute has all along remained as a government entity as it was never changed into a society. 17. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation to observe that irrespective of the fact whether an employee of the institute had retired before 29.08.2012 or was working on the said date, his status as a government employee will not change. 17. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation to observe that irrespective of the fact whether an employee of the institute had retired before 29.08.2012 or was working on the said date, his status as a government employee will not change. This fact is in fact reflected from the recitals made in the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 itself, especially the reasons indicated therein for recognizing the employees of the institute as State Government employees. Thus differentiating between who had retired and who were working on 29.08.2012, in our opinion, does not have any reasonable criteria. 18. To examine as to whether the character/status of the institute was ever changed from that of a government institute to a society, we may refer to a letter dated 18.12.1991 of the Government of India, Human Resource Development, Department of Education written to the Education Department of Government of U.P. which is available as Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners-State authorities dated 10.05.2019. As per the said letter, it was informed by the Government of India that release of funds for the institute can be considered after the institute is actually converted/registered as an autonomous body, however, no notification or decision of the State Government was issued or taken to convert the institute into an autonomous society. This fact is reflected from the Minutes of Meeting of the Executive Body of the institute held on 20.02.1999 where the decision at point No. 8 clearly reveals that the notification of the State Government to convert the institute into an autonomous society was pending. Thus it is abundantly clear that though there was some movement initially in the year 1991 to convert the institute from a government institute to an autonomous society, the intended decision could not be implemented and accordingly holding the respondent No. 1/claimant not to be a government servant on the basis of the Government Order dated 29.08.2012, in our opinion, is not sustainable. 19. We may also refer to a Government Order dated 19.06.2006 which is available on record as Annexure No. 1 to the short counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant, dated 14.05.2019. 19. We may also refer to a Government Order dated 19.06.2006 which is available on record as Annexure No. 1 to the short counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant, dated 14.05.2019. According to the said Government Order, the institute had existed as a government institution prior to 1991 and though after 1991 it was intended to change its character, however, such intended decision was never implemented and accordingly, legally the status/character of the institute did not change. The said Government Order also clearly states that on this basis, the employees working in the institute are entitled to be given pensionary and other post-retiral benefits at par with the government employees. The Government Order dated 19.06.2006 is extracted herein-below: ^^la[;k&457@15&11&06&1494@21@05 Ás"kd] jes’k pUæ f?kfYM+;ky] la;qDr lfpo] mRrj Áns’k 'kklu lsok esa funs’kd] jkT; 'kSf{kd rduhdh laLFkku] mŒÁŒ y[kuÅ f’k{kk vuqHkkx y[kuÅ fnukad 19 twu] 2006 fo"k; & jkT; 'kSf{kd rduhdh laLFkku] mŒÁŒ y[kuÅ ds lsokfuo`Rr deZpkfj;ksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lsokfuo`fRrd ykHk fn;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] ¼1½ mi;qZDr fo"k;d vkids i= la[;k&osŒvkŒ la[;k&35@2006&07 fnukad 17-04-2006 ds lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd 'kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd jkT; 'kSf{kd rduhdh laLFkku ¼lkbV½] mŒÁŒ y[kuÅ pwafd o"kZ 1991 ls iwoZ ,d jktdh; laLFkk ds :i esa LFkkfir Fkh vkSj o"kZ 1991 ds i’pkr ;|fi laLFkku dh ÁkfLFkfr ifjofrZr dh x;h] fdUrq bls veyh tkek u iguk;s tkus ds dkj.k vFkkZr fof/kd :i ls Lo:i ifjorZu u gks ikus ds dkj.k laLFkku dk okLofod ifjorZu ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA bl vk/kkj ij laLFkku esa fu;fer :i ls fu;qDr@dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ls fdlh isa’kujh@vodk’k osru va’knku dh vis{kk fd;s fcuk jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkkafr gh mUgsa lsokfuo`Rr ykHk fn;s tkus dh lqfo/kk Ánku dh tk;A d`i;k rn~uqlkj lsokfuo`Rr deZpkfj;ksa ds yfEcr Ádj.kksa dk fuLrkj.k lqfuf’pr djsaA ¼2½ ;s vkns’k foRr foHkkx ds v’kkldh; la[;k&lkŒ&03&484@nl&2006 fnukad 16-06-2006 esa ÁkIr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSA Hkonh;] ¼jes’k pUæ f?kfYM+;ky½ la;qDr lfpo la[;k&457@15&11&06 rnfnukadA Áfrfyfr & fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"kr %& 1- funs’kd] ,lŒlhŒbZŒvkjŒVhŒ] mŒÁŒ] y[kuÅA 2- funs’kd] ek/;fed f’k{kkŒ] mŒÁŒ] y[kuÅA 3- foRr¼bZ½ vuqHkkx&11] mŒÁŒ 'kkluA vkKk ls] ¼jes’k pUæ f?kfYM+;ky½ la;qDr lfpoA** 20. From a perusal of the Government Order dated 19.06.2006 which has been extracted here-in-above it is clear that the status/character of the institute from a government institute to that of an autonomous society was never changed and in this factual background treating those employees who had retired prior to 29.08.2012 not as government servants and treating those who were working on the said date as government servants, in our considered opinion, amounts to unreasonable classification for which there is no rational basis. Such differentiation or classification without any reasonable basis is clearly hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions made and reasons given, we are of the opinion that argument made by learned State Counsel representing the petitioners-State authorities that on issuance of the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant was rendered infructuous, is completely misconceived and thus is not tenable in the eyes of law. 22. Accordingly, we do not find any force in the writ petition, which is resultantly dismissed. 23. However, there will be no order as to costs. 24. The State-authorities thus are directed to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.04.2014 in Claim Petition No. 1932 of 2011 within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.