ORDER : 1. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr. Manan Mehta for the appellant in the first two captioned Letters Patent Appeals, whereas learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Krutik Parikh for the appellant in the third captioned Letters Patent Appeal and learned advocate Mr. Harsh Raval for the respondents in the first two captioned Letters Patent Appeals, as well as learned advocate Mr. Harshadray Dave in the third captioned Letters Patent Appeal. 2.1 All the appeals arise from common judgment dated 25.2.2022 of learned single Judge passed in three respective Special Civil Applications. The appellant State and the Commissioner of Higher Education have called in question the said common judgment and order of learned single Judge in these three Letters Patent Appeal preferred under clause 5 of the Letters Patent. 2.2 Since the facts and the issues are common, the appeals were heard together to be treated for final disposal by this order. 2.3 Allowing the Special Civil Applications, learned single Judge issued the following directions: “Thus, in order to see that the petitioners are conferred the retirement benefits, the State Government is directed to grant the same to the petitioners. It is clarified that it will be open for the State Government to initiate appropriate process, after conferring the said benefits to the petitioners to recover the same or to adjust the same from the grant given to the University. However, it is clarified that such action can only be taken after appropriate consultation with the respondent-University keeping in mind that the initial appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or against the provisions of law since all the petitioners have undergone the regular recruitment process.” 2.3.1 It was further directed: “Appropriate orders conferring the pension and retirement benefits shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. It is clarified that it will be open for the State Government to examine the case of each of the petitioners and only in such case if it is found that the appointment is made without following any recruitment process or illegally, the State may deny such benefit. It is clarified that it will be open for the State Government to examine the case of each of the petitioners and only in such case if it is found that the appointment is made without following any recruitment process or illegally, the State may deny such benefit. It is clarified that it will be open for such employee to challenge the action of the State or the University in denying the benefits.” 2.4 In respect of those employees who died during the pendency, their legal heirs were directed to be given benefits of pension and other retirement benefits. 2.5 What was prayed by the petitioners in their Special Civil Applications was to direct the respondent authorities to extend the benefits of 6th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.2006 treating the petitioners to be entitled to such benefits. Resolutions dated 15.1.2020, 4.2.2011 and 14.8.2012 were prayed to be set aside whereby such benefits stood denied to the petitioners. The other limb of the prayer was to direct the respondents to grant the benefits of gratuity and pension as well as the higher pay scale of service from the due date. 3. Noticing the basic facts, particularly from Special Civil Application No. 14390 of 2011 relating to Letters Patent Appeal no. 1274 of 2022, as they ran common and similar in all the cases, pursuant to advertisement dated 21.12.1983 issued by the respondent Gujarat University for the post of Stenographer Grade II. The petitioner applied for the post. He was called for in interview and came to be given letter of appointment on 16.4.1984 upon verification of the eligibility. The appointment was on permanent post on probation for one year in the pay scale of Rs. 475-800 + D.A. as per the rules of the University. The petitioner of the said petition stood confirmed by order dated 1.1.1986 of the University with effect from 26.4.1985 on the basis of the decision of the Executive Council. The confirmation letter of the petitioner figured on the record of the petition. 3.1 Thereafter, by letter dated 8.4.2022, the pay scale of the petitioner was revised and subsequently he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986. As the petitioner and other employees had not been granted 6th Pay Commission benefits, representation dated 13.7.2010 was made to respondent No. 1 for extending such benefits. 3.1 Thereafter, by letter dated 8.4.2022, the pay scale of the petitioner was revised and subsequently he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986. As the petitioner and other employees had not been granted 6th Pay Commission benefits, representation dated 13.7.2010 was made to respondent No. 1 for extending such benefits. The University granted the pay scale as per 6th Pay Commission from 1.6.2011 to the petitioner. The benefits were not given with effect from 1.1.2006, to the discrimination of the petitioner, as per the case of the petitioner. 3.2 The petitioner mentioned in the petition name of one Prashant Dholakiya in the petition who was appointed on 25.09.1985 and came to be given the benefits of 6th Pay Commission benefits from 1.1.2006 even though the petitioner was senior in terms of appointment having been appointed in the year 1983. The petitioner also named other employee in the petition to specifically plead that injustice and discrimination was meted out to the petitioner in the matter of grant of 6th Pay Commission benefits from 1.1.2006. The petitioner also claimed that he was entitled to get higher pay scale. 3.3 In not extending the 6th Pay Commission benefits and thereafter 7th Pay Commission benefits also to the petitioners, it was the stand of the state government that such benefits were to be given by the University from its own funds. It is not in dispute that by resolution dated 15.1.2020 which is impugned in Special Civil Application No. 12863 of 2013, the state government conferred the benefits of 4th and 5th Pay Commission, however placing condition No. 4 that benefits of conferment of those benefits would not give rise to entitlement of 6th Pay Commission benefits as well as pension and retirement benefits. 3.4 It may be noted that during the pendency of the petitions, representation was made by the petitioners which was turned down by the state authorities passing resolution dated 14.8.2012 reiterating the stand of denying the benefits by 6th Pay Commission. The reason as stated above, was that the University had decided to extent such benefits to the petitioners without seeking approval from the state government. It was also sought to be canvassed that the extension of such benefits would burden the state excuequer. The reason as stated above, was that the University had decided to extent such benefits to the petitioners without seeking approval from the state government. It was also sought to be canvassed that the extension of such benefits would burden the state excuequer. 3.5 In light of such rival case, learned single Judge examined the issue with regard to the payment of pension and other retirement benefits to the employees who had by then retired from service, noticing that the benefits of 6th and 7th Pay Commission were rightly conferred by the University to the petitioner who were in service. 4. The moot point was that whether the petitioners could be refused the benefits of pension after rendering service in the University for more than 30 years on the ground only that the University had not taken approval from of the state government before according benefits. 5. Learned judge dealt with the issue by noticing that the petitioners were not appointed by way of back door entry or by any illegal method. This observations of learned single Judge could not be faulted with in as much as, it was established from the record that the petitioners had undergone the process of selection. They were appointed by the University. The only aspect was that the University did not seek approval from the government. In that light, it was not the case of the government that when no approval was sought the burden of pension would not have to be borne by the state government and should be paid from the funds of the University. 5.1 It is an admitted aspect noted by learned single Judge that the state government by Resolution dated 15.01.2010 conferred the benefits of 4th and 5th Pay Commission on the petitioners. The University thereafter granted from its own fund the benefits of 6th and 7th Pay Commission to its employees, including the petitioners. 5.2 Learned single Judge referred to statute 180-C of the Gujarat University Handbook framed under section 53 of the Gujarat University Act, whereunder it was provided that the benefit of pension has to be granted to the employees of the University as per rules applicable to the state employees from time to time. 5.2 Learned single Judge referred to statute 180-C of the Gujarat University Handbook framed under section 53 of the Gujarat University Act, whereunder it was provided that the benefit of pension has to be granted to the employees of the University as per rules applicable to the state employees from time to time. In that view, learned single Judge rightly referred to the provisions of Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, which would become applicable to the University employees as well. 5.3 Rule 25 deals with qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Thereunder, the categories of service which are treated as qualifying service for the purpose of reckoning the pensionable period are classified. The qualifying service under the said rule would include all services including the services on probation rendered on regular establishment in any capacity whether temporary, permanent, interrupted or continuous. Those services not to be included are categorised in clauses (a) to (h). In other words, the employees who have rendered service on the regular establishment either in the capacity of permanent employee and whether their services are interrupted or continuous, are eligible for the pension under the said 2002 Rules. 6. In light of the facts and facets obtaining in the controversy, it has to be firstly mentioned that the petitioners were not the back door entrants. They had faced selection process to be appointed on the post. It was only on the count that the University had not sought approval of the state government, the objection was raised by the state government about payment of pension since the question of bearing of financial liability arose. Non-taking the government’s approval on this score by the University could not be said to be attaching the appointments of the petitioners with any illegality. It was at the best an irregularity. The distinction in law between illegality and irregularity is well known. The illegality is something which goes to the root to vitiate the act, action or decision. On the other hand, irregularity is breach of some procedure. Illegality is fatal, whereas irregularity is curable. 6.1 All the petitioners had put in more than 30 years of service. The distinction in law between illegality and irregularity is well known. The illegality is something which goes to the root to vitiate the act, action or decision. On the other hand, irregularity is breach of some procedure. Illegality is fatal, whereas irregularity is curable. 6.1 All the petitioners had put in more than 30 years of service. Reading statute 180-C of the University statutes with Rules 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2005, all the petitioners had earned and could be said to have credited with qualifying service for becoming entitled to the pension. Even otherwise, the stand of the state government in questioning the entitlement of the petitioners to be paid pension was arbitrary in the facts of the case. 6.2 Learned single Judge was entirely justified in noticing and relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat and Others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109 of 2022 decided on 18.02.2022, in which it was observed: “It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.” 6.3 Learned single Judge was quite justified in observing that even if the services of the petitioners was to be treated ad ad-hoc, they were entitled to the benefits of pension in view of the above Rule 25. Learned single Judge observed: “.........even an ad hoc employee, who has been continued for considerable long period cannot be denied pension merely because he/she was continued as such and the State Government or the authorities cannot take the benefit of their own wrong. The case of the petitioners stand on better footing. The petitioners have honestly and diligently rendered their services and after retirement they are denied pension and retirement benefits only for the sole reason that the University has not taken any approval from the State Government. The case of the petitioners stand on better footing. The petitioners have honestly and diligently rendered their services and after retirement they are denied pension and retirement benefits only for the sole reason that the University has not taken any approval from the State Government. Neither the University has made any efforts for taking approval from the State Government nor the State government before approving the pay scales of the petitioners has raised any objections.” 6.4 While allowing the respective petitions, learned single Judge clarified to balance rights of the parties that it would be open for the state government to initiate proper process after conferring the benefits to the petitioners, to recover the same or adjust the same from the grant given to the University. It was further clarified that such action can be taken after proper consultation with the University keeping in view that the initial appointments of the petitioners could not be said to be illegal. 6.5 The view taken by learned single Judge was eminently proper that when the petitioners were recruited after following process and therefore appointments could not be characterized as illegal looking to their length of the service, they were entitled to pension and the non-approval of the government would not disentitle the petitioners from availing the benefit of pension, otherwise accrued to them in law. This court is in total agreement with the reasoning given and conclusions arrived at of learned single Judge in the impugned judgment and order. 7. The challenge to the impugned judgment in the present Letters Patent Appeals are meritless. All the appeals are summarily dismissed. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, no orders are required to be passed in the Civil Applications for stay filed in the respective appeals. They also stand disposed of.