JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri O.P. Tripathi and Sri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, P.K. Ganguly, learned counsel for the University and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. 2. This bunch of writ petitions contains as many as nine writ petitions, however, looking to the facts involved in the cases, the Court is of the view that these petitions are segregated in two different bunches. 3. Accordingly, the connected matters in Writ A No.10622 of 2022 being Writ A No.21548 of 2022, 21585 of 2022, 21223 of 2022 and 2932 of 2023 are now segregated and are directed to be listed with Writ A No.19750 of 2022 as separated bunch of cases, on 11.09.2023. 4. Now, the Court proceeds to decide writ petitions being Writ A Nos.10622 of 2022, 11289 of 2022, 13767 of 2022 and 21022 of 2022 as they involve more or less similar facts. 5. The petition being Writ A no.10622 of 2022 is taken to be leading petition. 6. All these petitioners claim to be enjoying faculty position in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, namely, respondent no.2 and hence, are aggrieved by the orders impugned in respect of the petitions by which petitioners have been made to superannuate upon their attaining 60 years of age. 7. The ground for assailing the order chiefly is that the petitioner fall within the definition of 'TEACHER' as prescribed for in the First Statute of the University prior to it being amended by Amending Act of 2022. The petitioners who were initially appointed on the post of Research Assistant with the University, claimed to have stood discriminated against earlier in the matter of payscale as the similarly placed teachers of Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogic Mahavidyalaya, Faizabad were awarded pay-scale of 2200-4000 under a Government Order dated 22.7.1999. 8. As a matter of fact, a recommendation was made by administrative officer of Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogic Mahavidyalaya, Faizabad for awarding UGC pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 to the Senior Research Associates of the University. These research associates had even approached the Lucknow Bench of this Court vide Writ No.10821(S/B-1) of 1995 in which directions were issued to the State Government to consider their claim for award of demanded payscale. 9. These research associates had even approached the Lucknow Bench of this Court vide Writ No.10821(S/B-1) of 1995 in which directions were issued to the State Government to consider their claim for award of demanded payscale. 9. The State Government in its turn referred to an earlier Government Order dated 29.11.1991 which provided that those senior Research Associates who fulfilled norms of a teacher they may be declared as teachers under relevant regulations of Chaper XII and it was on account of that consequentially a resolution was adopted by the Executive Council of the University in its 35th meeting dated 13.3.1992, with which all these Research Associates were declared as teacher and thus were referred to the State Government for being awarded UGC pay scale of 2200-4000. It was in the light of the aforesaid resolution of the Executive Council that the State Government awarded UGC pay scale to Research Associates of Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogic Mahavidyalaya, Faizabad vide Government Order dated 22.7.1999 and they were also directed to be absorbed against the post commensurate to the said pay scale. 10. The petitioners who were working with an identically placed State University, namely, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur filed a writ petition before Lucknow Bench of this Court being Writ Petition No.836(S/B) of 1994 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of under its order dated 18.8.1999 in following terms : “Since the Government has already taken a decision in respect of the Senior Research Associates of the Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishvidyalay, Faizabad vide its order dated 22.7.1999 there is no reason why the same benefit should not be extended to the Research Assistants of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur who are the members of the petitioners’ association. Therefore, the State Government is directed to extend the same benefit to the petitioners also as is being provided to the Research Associates of Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishvidyalay, Faizabad by the Government Order dated 22.7.1999. With the aforesaid observations the petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.” 11. Upon the aforesaid order not being complied with the contempt petition was filed and while the notices got issued in the contempt petition on 8.5.2000 that the State of U.P. filed a review petition no.220 of 2000 in respect of the order dated 18.8.1999. 12. No order as to costs.” 11. Upon the aforesaid order not being complied with the contempt petition was filed and while the notices got issued in the contempt petition on 8.5.2000 that the State of U.P. filed a review petition no.220 of 2000 in respect of the order dated 18.8.1999. 12. The Board of Management of respondent no.2 finally in its 117th meeting held on 25.2.2021 adopted a resolution to finally confer upon the petitioners, the status qua the post commensurate to the pay scale awarded under the Government Order. It was clarified that benefit was for those who fulfil the eligibility criterion/essential qualification of an Assistant Teacher. The State Government finally issued a Government Order on 20.10.2005 giving revised pay scale of Assistant Teachers to the petitioners but of course subject to the final order that may be passed in the review petition. 13. The Court did not find any good ground to review the order and accordingly, dismissed the review petition vide order dated 13.4.2006. This order was further unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court and the S.L.P. also came to be dismissed. However, while review was still pending and respondent State was facing contempt proceeding, the State Government finally issued a Government Order on 7.8.2002 conferring same benefit upon Research Associates, namely the petitioners as was conferred upon the Senior Research Associates of Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya, Faizabad. However, while review was still pending and respondent State was facing contempt proceeding, the State Government finally issued a Government Order on 7.8.2002 conferring same benefit upon Research Associates, namely the petitioners as was conferred upon the Senior Research Associates of Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya, Faizabad. The relevant paragraph no.2 of the Government Order dated 7.8.2002 is reproduced hereunder : ^^2- ekå mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr fu.kZ; fnukad 18-8-99 ds fo:} jkT; ljdkj }kjk fjO;w ;kfpdk la[;k & 220@2000 ;ksftr dh x;h gS vr% ekå mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad & 18-8-99 dk leknj djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr 'krksZa ,oa Áfrca/kks ds v/khu fjO;w ;kfpdk laå 836A ,l@ohA@1994 ds ;kphx.k dks ,rn~}kjk Jh jkT;iky 47 ;kphx.k dks f'k{kd ?kksf"kr gksus dh frfFk ls vflLVsaV ÁksQslj dks :å 2200&4000 dk iqujhf{kr osrueku :å 8000&13500 vuqeU; djk;s tkus dk vkns'k Ánku djrs gSaA ¼1½ ;g vkns'k ekå mPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j fjO;w ;kfpdk la[;k & 220@02 esa ikfjr gksus okys vafre fu.kZ;@vkns'kksa ds v/khu gksxkA ¼2½ mDr vkns'k ds QyLo:i gksus okys vfrfjDr O;; ekå mPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j fjO;w ;kfpdk ds vafre vkns'kksa rd pUnz'ks[kj vktk d`f"k ,oa Áks|ksfxdh fo'ofo|ky;] dkuiqj }kjk vius Lo;a ds óksrksa ls ogu fd;k tk,xkA bl Ádkj ds vafre fuLrkj.k@fjO;w ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vafre funsZ'kksa rd mDr vkns'k ds QyLo:i gksus okys vfrfjDr O;; ds fy, d`f"k fo'ofo|ky; dkuiqj gsrq fu/kkZfjr vuqnku esa dksà o`f} ugha dh tk;sxhA** 14. It is worth interesting to mention here that review petition filed by the State Government being review petition no.220 of 2000 had finally ended in dismissal thereof on 13.4.2006. These petitioners since were conferred with the status of teacher by the University under the resolution adopted by its Board of Management and the consequential order passed by the State Government on 20.10.2005. The controversy thus finally ended as to the status of the petitioners in the University as duly absorbed members in the faculty with the dismissal of the review petition. The University subsequently on 27.5.2011 awarded all these petitioners, the selection grade and further additional financial benefit in pay scale after completing refresher course. 15. This was also done under the resolution adopted by the Board of Management dated 7.12.2010. The University subsequently on 27.5.2011 awarded all these petitioners, the selection grade and further additional financial benefit in pay scale after completing refresher course. 15. This was also done under the resolution adopted by the Board of Management dated 7.12.2010. The continuance of the petitioners in the faculty of the University was not questioned thereafter until the State Government wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor on 14.6.2022 in view of the definition of teacher provided under the notification dated 5.8.2019 which directed for a modified definition of teacher that the Senior Research Associates cannot be taken to be falling within the definition of teacher as prescribed for under the U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958. The relevent provisions of the Government Order as contained in paragraph nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 thereof is reproduced hereunder : 16. With these guidelines issued by the State Government, the University landed in an utter state of confusion as to what to do with those Research Associates who have been conferred upon with the benefit of teaching positions at par with those in whose respect the Government Order was issued way back in the year 1999 and similar benefit was conferred upon such Research Associates of the University in view of the directions issued by the High Court in representation dated 18.8.1999. 17. It is also pertinent to mention here while the contempt petition bearing no.762 of 2000 was instituted for compliance of the order dated 18.8.1999, the State Government took a stand that under the Government Order dated 20.10.2005, the petitioners were awarded desired payscale and that they have been absorbed against sanctioned/vacant position of Assistant Professors and equivalent posts in the University. 18. It is worth pertinent to reproduce the entire decision of the State Government issued through its Chief Secretary dated 4.1.2008 as under : 19. It is in the light of the aforesaid decision that finally contempt petition came to be dismissed as no cause was surviving any further. 18. It is worth pertinent to reproduce the entire decision of the State Government issued through its Chief Secretary dated 4.1.2008 as under : 19. It is in the light of the aforesaid decision that finally contempt petition came to be dismissed as no cause was surviving any further. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.9.2015 passed in the contempt petition no.762 of 2000 is reproduced hereunder : "A perusal of the record further reveals that the Executive Council/board of Management of Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyala, Faizabad, who is the competent authority to declare the Senior Research Associates as a Teacher declare the same vide its resolution dated 13.3.1999 and accordingly reference was made to the State Government for grant of higher pay scale. Thereafter the State Government vide its order dated 22.7.1999 treated the 19 Senior Research Associates as Assistant Professors in the Scale of Rs.2200-4000 with effect from 13.3.1992 subject to the certain conditions. However, in the case of the petitioner's Association, the Executive Council/Board of Management, who is the authority competent, declared the members of the petitioner's association as Teachers with effect from 25.2.2002 in compliance of the order passed by this Court. There is no dispute to the fact that the State Government vide Government Order dated 20.10.2005 has granted the benefit with effect from 8.1.2001, which has been subsequently implemented by the University. Thus, certain facts of the petitioner's case are different and they cannot be placed at par with their counter part of the Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyala, Faizabad. In these circumstances, it is wrong to say that the order of the writ court has not been complied with in its word and spirit. On due consideration, it appears that order of the writ court has been complied with in its letter and spirit. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed and the notices issued to the contemnors are hereby discharged. However, in the event members of the petitioner association' are aggrieved in any manner, they may approach the appropriate forum." 20. In view of the above the Director, (Administration and Monitoring) of the University wrote a letter dated 5.10.2020 to the Special Secretary (Agriculture and Research Department), Government of U.P., Lucknow clarifying the position that the petitioners have been conferred upon with the status of the Assistant Professor and accordingly required appropriate directives. 21. In view of the above the Director, (Administration and Monitoring) of the University wrote a letter dated 5.10.2020 to the Special Secretary (Agriculture and Research Department), Government of U.P., Lucknow clarifying the position that the petitioners have been conferred upon with the status of the Assistant Professor and accordingly required appropriate directives. 21. The State Government seems to have reiterated its stand under the order dated 16.6.2022 that Research Associates were to be taken to be at par with the Assistant Professors of the University. In other words the Government refused to acknowledge these petitioners to be members of the faculty of the University so as to retire at the age of 62 years instead of 60 years. The Director (Administration and Monitoring) proceeded in a mechanical manner to pass separate orders in respect of the respective petitioners in the order dated 8.7.2022 directing their superannuation upon attaining age of 60 years in the afternoon of 8.7.2022. 22. The ground of attack is that once the petitioners have been conferred upon with the status of Assistant Professor in the University/Teacher of the University were to be taken teachers as such and therefore, would be retiring upon attaining age of 62 years as is prescribed for such University teachers. 23. Further argument is that the definition of 'TEACHER' of the University having been modified or altered in the year 2019, will have only prospective operation and petitioners, since have been conferred with the status of teacher already by the Board of Management, the highest body of the University and the State Government having already taken a decision acknowledging the petitioners to be teachers under its order dated 4.1.2008, it could not have taken a turn around to deny petitioners' status as teachers. 24. It is argued that it is virtually an attempt to flout its own undertaking given before the contempt court that petitioners having been conferred with the pay-scale as admissible to the teachers of the University, were also conferred with the status of teachers as such with the approval of the State Government. 25. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that this controversy is no more res integra as the issues raised here in this bunch of writ petitions have already been addressed to and dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Writ - A No.7847 of 2022 decided on 17.5.2023 (Dr. 25. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that this controversy is no more res integra as the issues raised here in this bunch of writ petitions have already been addressed to and dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Writ - A No.7847 of 2022 decided on 17.5.2023 (Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Legislative Section 1 Govt. of U.P. and 4 others) and therefore, these petitions may also be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (Supra). 26. Per contra, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the University has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners were duly appointed as per the procedure prescribed for under the statute of the University. According to him there is a selection committee contemplated under the relevant provisions of the statute and petitioners having not faced as such the selection committee, cannot be said to be duly selected and appointed teachers of the University. 27. He has argued that merely because they have been conferred with the benefit of pay-scale, they cannot be taken to have been brought into the faculty so as to acquire the status of Assistant Professors. It is further argued that the status of the Assistant Professor can be considered only when someone fulfils the eligibility criteria fixed by U.G.C. It is argued that the Writ Petition No.836 (S/B) of 1994 was disposed of to allow the pay-scale by way of parity with identically placed teachers of another Agricultural University but there was no direction for conferring upon its teachers the status / designation of the Assistant Professor. He also argued that the Research Associate had already been declared to be a dying cadre and there was specific ban upon appointment of Research Associate by the State. 28. He further argues therefore, that the appointment of respective petitioners were questionable. He has further placed reliance upon the order of the Division Bench passed in Special Appeal No.75 of 2022 in which the Court has held the grant of benefit of Assistant Professor of Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogic Mahavidyalaya, Faizabad was itself illegal and contrary to law and facts. So the parity extended to the petitioners were also liable to be withdrawn. 29. So the parity extended to the petitioners were also liable to be withdrawn. 29. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments raised across the bar, one admitted position continues in respect of the petitioners that after the order was passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.836 (S/B) of 1994 on 18.8.1999, the State Government issued a Government Order on 7.8.2022 in which it very categorically provided that the petitioners were being conferred with the revised pay scale of Assistant Professor of Rs.8000-13,500/- from the date they have been declared as teachers. This Government Order dated 7.8.2002 had never been withdrawn. 30. Yet another admitted position is that the Board of Management of the University in its 117th meeting adopted resolution by constituting a Committee on 25.2.2002 to look into the records of these petitioners and the Committee having found them to be eligible to be accorded with the status of Assistant Professor, made recommendations and an order was passed on 8.3.2002 by the Chief Personnel Officer of the University, accordingly. 31. The Vice Chancellor passed a consequential order on 23.3.2002 seeking necessary approval thereof from the State Government and the State Government under its order dated 20.10.2005 granted financial sanction. 32. While the contempt petition was pending, the State Government reiterated the status of the petitioners as Assistant Professors very categorically by taking a decision upon their representation on 4.1.2008 under the signatures of Chief Secretary in which it has come to be very categorically recorded in an unequivocal terms that “as per the information received from the University these petitioners have been absorbed against sanctioned/vacant positions of Assistant Professor and equivalent post.” 33. Still further, I have referred to the decision of the University to confer upon the petitioners, the time scale as well as the revised payscale upon their completing refreshers course under the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by the Administrative Officer of the University. This document has also not been disputed by Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the University. 34. In view of the admitted positions both at the end of the University and of the State Government, the argument so advanced by Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate opposing the writ petitions cannot have any basis. 35. In view of the above admitted factual positions, it is difficult to understand as to how the University is opposing the writ petitioner’s case. 35. In view of the above admitted factual positions, it is difficult to understand as to how the University is opposing the writ petitioner’s case. The University itself not only by its conduct but by its act treated the petitioners to be faculty members of the University and therefore, in my considered view they having been absorbed as Assistant Professors by the resolution adopted by the Board of Management and the consequential orders passed upon the recommendation of the Committee by the Vice Chancellor and the financial sanction given by the State Government, neither the University nor the State Government can claim any further that petitioners were not holding teaching positions or positions equivalent thereto in the University. 36. In so far as the Government Order dated 14.6.2022 and the consequential order issued on 16.6.2022 are concerned, petitioners cannot be taken to be not falling in the category of teachers for the change in definition brought in subsequently in the year 2019. 37. Law is well settled that unless and until an Act is made retrospective in its operation, it is to be always taken as prospective. The Division Bench in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (Supra) has already dealt in detail with this particular aspect vide paragraph no.16, 17 and 18 which is reproduced hereunder : “(16) In view of the provisions contained in the amending Act, namely, U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019, since there is no express provision of its applicability from a retrospective date, it will thus operate prospectively. In our considered opinion, since U.P. Act No.9 of 2019 has not been made applicable retrospectively, if a particular category of employees has already been classified or recognized as “Teachers”, they will continue to be treated as “Teachers”. We have already noticed that as per the powers vested in it in Chapter XII of the First Statutes of the University, the Board of Management in its 28th meeting held on 30.09.1980 has already recognized the Subject Matter Specialists as “Teachers” and thus by operation of U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019 their status as “Teacher”, in our opinion, will not change for the reason that U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019 has not been made effective with effect from any retrospective date. (17) At this juncture, we may refer to Section 6 of U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 according to which if any U.P. Act repeals any enactment, then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. Section 6 of U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 is quoted hereunder:- “6. Effect of repeal. Where any Uttar Pradesh Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any remedy, or investigation or legal proceeding commenced before repealing Act shall have come into operation in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such remedy may be enforced and any such investigation or legal proceeding may be continued and concluded, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed.” (18) Thus, by substituting new definition of 'Teacher' in Section 2(k) in the Principal Act by way of Act No. 9 of 2019, the old definition of the word “Teacher” stands repealed, however, since there is no express or implied provision in U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019 for its retrospective operation, those employees who were already recognized as “Teachers” will continue to be “Teachers”. In the unamended Section 2(k), the words occurring are a person “appointed” or “recognized”. Thus before U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019, if a person was appointed as Teacher, he will be a “Teacher” and if any employee though not appointed as Teacher, but is recognized as “Teacher”, he shall also be a “Teacher”. At the cost of repetition, we may again refer to the decision of the Board of Management of the University taken in its 28th meeting held on 30.09.1980, wherein the Subject Matter Specialists have been recognized as “Teachers”. At the cost of repetition, we may again refer to the decision of the Board of Management of the University taken in its 28th meeting held on 30.09.1980, wherein the Subject Matter Specialists have been recognized as “Teachers”. Thus in the aforesaid view of the matter, the amendment in the definition of the word “Teacher” as occurring in Section 2(k) will not affect the status of the petitioners as “Teachers”. 38. The Division Bench has held that such Senior Research Associates who were conferred with the benefit of UGC pay scale of teachers and also that the status of the teachers in the Government Order of Narendra Dev Krishi Evam Prodyogic Mahavidyalaya, Faizabad shall retire only upon attaining the age of 62 years as prescribed undisputedly for the teachers of the University. Vide Paragraph 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, the Court has held thus : (23) We have already noticed that so far as the teaching staff and Scientists in the University are concerned, their age of superannuation indisputably is 62 years. In view of the decision of the Board of Management taken in its 28th Meeting of 30.09.1980, the Subject Matter Specialists have been recognized as Teachers. Unamended Section 2(k) categorizes an employee as a Teacher not only if he is appointed as Teacher, but also if such an employee is recognized as Teacher. We have already held that since U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019 does not provide for either expressly or impliedly, its operation retrospectively, the amended definition of 'Teacher' in Section 2(k) in this case will have no application. (24) In view of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that while issuing the Government Order dated 14.06.2022, the State Government has not taken into account the fact that Section 2(k) as amended vide U.P. Act No. 9 of 2019 will have only prospective operation and hence it will not affect those employees working in Krishi Vigyan Kendras who were already recognized as 'Teachers' in terms of the decision of the Board of Management of the University. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that in pursuance of the Government Orders/letters dated 14.06.2022, 29.07.2022 and 10.11.2022 the petitioners could not have been made to retire on their attaining the age of 60 years. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that in pursuance of the Government Orders/letters dated 14.06.2022, 29.07.2022 and 10.11.2022 the petitioners could not have been made to retire on their attaining the age of 60 years. (25) For the discussions made and reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the Orders dated 11.11.2022 which are contained in Annexure Nos.3 and 4, whereby the petitioners have been retired on their attaining the age of 60 years, cannot be sustained. (26) Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Director, Administration and Monitoring of the University as are contained in Annexure Nos.3 and 4 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. (27) The petitioners shall be allowed to continue to serve on their respective posts till they attain the age of 62 years. They shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits which would have accrued to them had the orders dated 11.11.2002 not been passed.” 39. In view of the above and the stand taken by the State in its order dated 04.01.2008, resolution of Board of Management of the University dated 25.02.2002, consequential order of Vice Chancellor and order dated 23.03.2021 and of the State Government dated 20.10.2005, all these petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 8.7.2022 retiring the petitioners upon their attaining the age of 60 years are hereby set aside in respect of each of the petitioners. 40. All petitioners are to be treated as faculty members of the University against teaching positions and hence are held entitled to all service benefits including age of retirement as admissible to teachers of the University. 41. The petitioners are directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and shall be permitted to continue until their attaining age of 62 years. 42. Cost made easy.