Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2881 (ALL)

Anil Kumar Katiyar v. State Of U. P.

2023-12-21

AJIT KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Ajit Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mayank Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ – A No. 19750 of 2022, Sri Ajeet Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ – A No. 2932 of 2023, Sri Atul Tej Kulshrestha, learned Advocate appearing for the respective petitioners in Writ – A No. 21543 of 2022 and Writ -A No. 21585 of 2022, Sri Manoj Kumar singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ – A No. 21223 of 2022, Sri P.K. Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing for the University namely Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for Chandra Shekhar Azad University in the respective petitions, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. All these petitions since raise common question of law, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment and writ petition of Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar and another being Writ – A No.-19750 of 2022 is taken to be the leading petition and the documents of this petition have been referred to for reference purposes. 3. Petitioner No.-1, namely, Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar (Writ – A No. -19750 of 2022) was appointed on 14th January, 1995 as Assistant Professor (Soil Science) and was given posting at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Badaun whereas petitioner No.-2, namely, Madhvendra Singh was appointed as Assistant Professor Agricultural Engineering and was posted at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ghaziabad. For the purposes of reference the appointment order of Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar is reproduced hereunder: “G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology Pant Nagar-263145 Distt. Nainital, U.P. Personnel Management Section No.PMS(A)III/SCR/8200 Date: Jan. 14, 1995 Sri/Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar, C/O Sri M.C. Sachan 11, New Market, Pantnagar With reference to your application dated 25.7.94 and on the basis of the approval by the Board of Management of this University, the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to appoint you on the post of Training Associate/S.M.S./Asstt. Professor (Soil Science) temporarily in the University in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. Anil Kumar Katiyar, C/O Sri M.C. Sachan 11, New Market, Pantnagar With reference to your application dated 25.7.94 and on the basis of the approval by the Board of Management of this University, the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to appoint you on the post of Training Associate/S.M.S./Asstt. Professor (Soil Science) temporarily in the University in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. You will be allowed a basic pay of Rs.2200/-Rupees Two thousand two hundred only), per mensum in the above scale plus dearness allowance as per rules of the University with effect from the date of joining. 2. The terms and conditions of your services shall be as mentioned in the form of contract already executed by you. 3. Residential accommodation, as available will be provided to you on rent. 4. The University will not pay any travelling allowance for taking up the above appointment. 5. You will have to abide by regulation on code of Conduct for teachers of this University, (a copy of the same is enclosed). 6. You will have also to abide by the Act, Statutes and Regulations of the University as framed or modified from time to time. 7. Please inform the Chief Personnel Officer immediately if the appointment is acceptable to you. If so you should report for duty to the Officer Incharge, K.V.K. Badaun of this University latest by 13.2.1995. (M.S. Gangwar) Chief Personnel Officer for Vice-Chancellor” 4. Both the petitioners completed their Ph.D. degree from the University and were promoted on 12th April, 2017 as Professor, KVK. The promotion order of petitioner Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar as a Professor dated 12th April, 2017 is reproduced hereunder: “Personnel Section Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture & Technology, Meerut – 250110 No: SVP/PS2017/5488 Date: 12.04.2017 Order Consequent upon the promotion from Programme Coordinator/Associate Director Extension to Professor (KVK) under Career Advancement Scheme as promulgated by the U.P. Govt. vide G.O. No. 290/12-8-2002-400(43)/ 96, date 07.02.2000, 2631/67- d`f'kv -10-1500(16)/09 date 21.09.2010 and G.O. No. 2052/67- d`f'kv -14-1500(16)/09 dated 30.09.2014 applicable to the teachers of Agricultural Universities in U.P. (Krishi Vigyan Kendra) and there upon the decision of the Board of Management Dated 20.03.2017, Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to promote Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar, Associate Director Extension, KVK, Muzaffarnagar pay band Rs. 37400-67000 AGP Rs. 9000/- to the post of Professor (Soil Science), KVK in the pay band Rs. 37400-67000 AGP Rs. Anil Kumar Katiyar, Associate Director Extension, KVK, Muzaffarnagar pay band Rs. 37400-67000 AGP Rs. 9000/- to the post of Professor (Soil Science), KVK in the pay band Rs. 37400-67000 AGP Rs. 10000/- subject to the conditions as mentioned below: 1. That the aforesaid Selection Grade shall be governed by the conditions as laid down in the G.O. No. 2631/67- d`f'kv -10- 1500(16)/09 date 21.09.2010 and G.O. No. 2052/67- d`f'kv -14- 1500(16)/09 dated 30.09.2014 in respect of the Teacher's Promotion Policy which interalia lays down as follows: (i) This promotion will be effective from the date it is due to him i.e. 01.07.2010 as per resolution of the Board of Management dated 20.03.2017. (ii) This promotion is purely personal to the incumbent and the person concerned will continue to discharge his teaching/research/extension responsibilities as hitherto. There will be no reduction in workload nor any additional monetary benefit or any privilege due to this promotion. (iii) That this promotion would, at no time, cause any creation of any additional post and as such, whenever the incumbent leaves the University services, the post held by him prior to the grant of aforesaid selection scale shall only be filled. 2. The other terms and conditions will remain the same as provided in the Act and Statutes, as well as the agreement bond already filled by him. Registrar for Vice-Chancellor” 5. These above documents have been annexed with specific averments made in paragraph 7 and 18 of the writ petition and in reply to the same, the university vide paragraphs 7 & 9 of the counter affidavit has only stated that these are matters of record and need no comments. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and sworn by Sri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Special Secretary, Agriculture Education and Research, U.P., Lucknow, there is no denial to these documents as it has been stated vide paragraphs 8 and 10 of the said counter affidavit these are matters of record and hence need no comments. 6. Similarly, petitioner, namely, Dr. Shripal (Writ – A No.-21223 of 2022) was appointed as SMS/Assistant Professor on 9th June, 2008, Planned Breeding and given posting at KVK, Noorpur. He was also subsequently benefited under the CAS. 7. Petitioner, namely, Dr. Satish Kumar (Writ – A No.-21543 of 2022) was appointed on 20th December, 1995 as Training Associate (Extension) at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Jalalpur. Shripal (Writ – A No.-21223 of 2022) was appointed as SMS/Assistant Professor on 9th June, 2008, Planned Breeding and given posting at KVK, Noorpur. He was also subsequently benefited under the CAS. 7. Petitioner, namely, Dr. Satish Kumar (Writ – A No.-21543 of 2022) was appointed on 20th December, 1995 as Training Associate (Extension) at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Jalalpur. He was also promoted as Associate Professor/Training Associate under the order of Vice-Chancellor dated 11th January, 2008. 8. Petitioner, namely, Dr. Sheesh Pal Singh (Writ – A No.-21585 of 2022) was appointed as Training Associate/Assistant Professor under the order dated 8th December, 2003 and was given posting at KVK, Nagina. He was also given benefit under the CAS vide order dated 7th February, 2011 and further given benefit on 12th April, 2017 in the pay band of Rs.15500-39100 to with A.G.P. of Rs.8,000/-. 9. Petitioner, namely, Om Prakash Verma (Writ – A No.-2932 of 2023) was appointed on 10th November, 1991 as Subject Matter Specialist, Dairy (ND) Scheme and was given posting at Kanpur. He was further conferred with the benefit under CAS on 29th July, 2015. These facts are also not disputed either by the university or by the State Government in their respective counter affidavits and have been replied to just as a matter or record. 10. Since the State of U.P. has already enacted the Uttar Pradesh State Agricultural Universities Act, 1958 and all the agricultural universities are governed under the said State Act, the State Government issued a Government order dated 14th November, 2014 applying first Statute of the Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural University to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut and other such agricultural universities run in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 11. The selection and appointment of the petitioners on their respective posts has been made upon creation of such posts by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as ‘ICAR’) as ICAR provides budget to run the Krishi Vigyan Kendra attached to the respective agricultural universities. The said Council has also reached to a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as ‘MOU’) with the respective universities on 5th April, 2020 jointly signed by the Officer on behalf of the ICAR as a first party and officer on special duty of the respondent University as a second party. The said Council has also reached to a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as ‘MOU’) with the respective universities on 5th April, 2020 jointly signed by the Officer on behalf of the ICAR as a first party and officer on special duty of the respondent University as a second party. The MOU states the object with which it has been signed and sub-clause (I), (II) and (III) of clause 2 being relevant are reproduced hereunder: “2.(I). To plan, undertake, aid, promote and co-ordinate education, research and its application in agriculture, agroforestry, animal husbandry, fisheries, home science and allied sciences. (II). To act as a clearing house of research and general information relating to agriculture, animal husbandry, home science, allied sciences and fisheries through its publications and information system, and by instituting and promoting transfer of technology programmes. (III). To provide, undertake and promote consultancy services in the fields of education, research, training and dissemination of information in agriculture, agroforestry, animal husbandry fisheries, home science and allied sciences.” 12. The mandate of the University under the MOU is as per sub-clause (III) of clause 4 ‘Coordinating extension activities in the field and undertaking the field and extension programmes for Uttar Pradesh’. Clause 5 of the MOU prescribes for two kinds of post, namely, Scientists/Subject Matter Specialist (SMS) and Technical Staff and provides recurring and non-recurring cost on the pattern of the assistance applicable to the Krishi Vigyan Kendra (hereinafter referred to as ‘KVK’). Sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of clause 5 are relevant and are reproduced hereunder: “5(i). Salary assistance in respect of component scientists and technical staff in different disciplines (Agricultural Extension, Agronomy, Plant Breeding, Livestock Production, Horticulture, Home Science, Agricultural Engineering, Fisheries, Agroforestry, Soil Science and Plant Protection) based on the local needs and requirements for taking up various activities of the KVK as per mandate; (iii) The cost of approved recurring and non-recurring items based on the pattern of assistance applicable to KVKs as decided by the competent authority from time to time.” 13. Sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of clause 6 are equally relevant here and are reproduced hereunder: “6(i). Sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of clause 6 are equally relevant here and are reproduced hereunder: “6(i). At least Twenty hectares of good quality cultivable land at suitable location, fish ponds or other required field/laboratory/classrooms facilities for imparting instructions through work-experience/learning by doing; (iii) Required Staff, Building, equipments and animals presently available with the Grantee (Institution) and specifically identified by Council for transfer to KVK as agreed for joint use from time to time.” 14. Thus, according to the above MOU, KVK provides for a centre at a suitable location for all kind of research activities based on cultivation and laboratory and the class room facility also for imparting instructions and take clauses and further the University staff may also be transferred to the centres if required as agreed by the University. 15. Clause 7 of the MOU that provides for grants to be made to the grantee by the Council which includes salary of the staff of the KVK and to provide designation and duties to the staff in accordance with law and provisions made under the scheme and that KVK staff will not be assigned any other duty except at the centre but the KVK staff will be treated at par with the staff of University for the purposes of privileges, amenities and facilities permissible to the corresponding staff of the grantee University, meaning thereby all service benefit of the corresponding positions in the University will be offered to the working staff of the KVK. Relevant sub-clauses (i), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of clause 7 of MOU are reproduced hereunder: “7(i). Open a separate Bank account in the name of KVK where entire grants-in-aid received from the Council would be deposited and amount will be withdrawn for the expenditure to be made only for the activities/programmes of the KVK including salary of the staff of KVK. (v). Keep the designation and duties of the staff in accordance with the provisions made in the scheme. (vi). Mortgage the land/farm of the KVK to the ICAR before the fund for infrastructure development is released from the council and the mortgage paper be submitted to the council for record. (vii). Not to divert/transfer/terminate any scientist, technical and office staff of KVK for any other work other than that of KVK. (viii). (vi). Mortgage the land/farm of the KVK to the ICAR before the fund for infrastructure development is released from the council and the mortgage paper be submitted to the council for record. (vii). Not to divert/transfer/terminate any scientist, technical and office staff of KVK for any other work other than that of KVK. (viii). Treat KVK staff at par for the purpose of privileges, amenities and facilities permissible to other staff of the Grantee.” (Emphasis added) 16. Sub-clauses (ii), (v) and (viii) of clause 8 of MOU are equally important and are reproduced hereunder: “(ii). All staff of KVK shall borne on the establishment of grantee only. The administrative control over the staff employed under the scheme, therefore, shall vest in the host institution. The placement of staff working in the project after the termination of the project shall the sole responsibility of Grantee (second party) without having any liability on the Council. (v). In the case of the development of a new technique or some innovation, the Council’s permission shall be sought before publishing it. (viii) The expenditure incurred from the grant will be audited by the Accountant General, Central Revenues/Commerce, Works and Miscellaneous or Accountant General of the State concerned or the Examiner of the Local Fund Accounts or Statutory Auditors of the Grantee Institutions or a Chartered Accountant or the ICAR's own internal auditors. Such auditors will furnish to the Secretary ICAR by the end of December of each year a certificate to the effect that the accounts of previous year ending on March have been audited and the grant has been spent on the objects for which it was meant. Any unspent balance should be refunded to the Council on the termination of the scheme. Further grants in respect of the scheme will be stopped unless the audit and utilization certificates in the prescribed proforma 'are received within a period of three years after the end of the financial year during which the grant has been made. Besides stoppage of grant of the KVK scheme due to non-receipt of the Audit and Utilization Certificate, the Council at its discretion may stop release of grant for other schemes being conducted at the time under the control of the defaulting grantee till the Audit and Utilization Certificates due are received.” (Emphasis added) 17. Besides stoppage of grant of the KVK scheme due to non-receipt of the Audit and Utilization Certificate, the Council at its discretion may stop release of grant for other schemes being conducted at the time under the control of the defaulting grantee till the Audit and Utilization Certificates due are received.” (Emphasis added) 17. From the perusal of the above it is clear that the entire KVK staff shall be borne on the establishment of the grantee University under its administrative and disciplinary control and entire work and conduct under the scheme will be monitored by the host University. The Council will not at all be responsible for any action taken by the University in respect of such employees regarding their work and conduct. 18. The half yearly report regarding work and progress of the centre will be sent to the Council and the grant will be released accordingly as per the performance at every half year. Sub-clause (xi) of clause 8 of the MOU equally provides it very clearly that ‘the financial assistance rendered by the Council will always be acknowledged in any published account of the work for which the grant is given’. 19. Vide sub-clause (xxv) of clause 8 the Council reserves the right to terminate the budget without any notice in the event of non-compliance of the conditions of MOU. It is admitted position to the parties that Council till date has continued to provide necessary budget to the University to run KVK and salaries and allowances have been paid out of that budget. 20. Sri Ganguli has accepted during the course of his submission that this budget has been kept under a different head and State Government has nothing to do with that budget provided by the Council inasmuch as those appointed and employed on the posts of Scientist or Subject Matter Specialist at the centre (KVK) only as per the MOU and State Government has never provided any matching grant or has directed for framing any rules or regulations to otherwise provide for the service conditions of such employees. Sri Ganguli would also not dispute that Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural University has also not made any amendment in its first Statute which has been made applicable to the universities separately to govern the service condition of the employees like Scientist, Subject Matter Specialist and other technical staff or other regular staff working with KVK. Sri Ganguli would also not dispute that Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural University has also not made any amendment in its first Statute which has been made applicable to the universities separately to govern the service condition of the employees like Scientist, Subject Matter Specialist and other technical staff or other regular staff working with KVK. 21. In view of the above admitted fact position the question that has been raised by the petitioners is, that petitioners would be equally entitled to such privileges, amenities and facilities as are permissible and admissible to the corresponding staff positions in the University as per sub-clause (viii) of clause 7 of MOU. 22. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that considering that the petitioners are Scientists involved in research work and imparting instructions in the field of agriculture science at the centre which has its own laboratory and classroom as per MOU, they stand at par with the teaching/academic faculty of the University and this is the reason why the career advancement scheme (CAS) of the University Grants Commission (hereinabove referred to as ‘UGC’) has been made admissible to the petitioners in writ petitions/petition No.-19750 of 2022, 21543 of 2022 and 21585 of 2022 and this University has not done on its own but even the ICAR had admitted in its letter dated 8th August, 2022 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the Universities that all those who were appointed prior to 29th March, 2011 and have now become Senior Scientist and Head of KVK would be governed by the UGC pay package as that has been adopted and those who were appointed as Subject Matter Specialist and were appointed in grade pay of Rs.6,000/-to them also UGC Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) has been made applicable. The relevant letter written by the Director on behalf of ICAR dated 8th August, 2022 is reproduced hereunder: “Letter: ATAR/2022-23/Admn./KVK/964-66 Date: 08.08.2022 To, Vice-Chancellor, All Agriculture and Technical University (U.P.) Subject: Regarding age of superannuation of officers in Krishi Vigyan Kendra. Sir, Regarding above it had been clarified by Council vide its letter No.-A.Extn.4/17/2019-AE-III date 24.02.2020 that all those Subject Matter Specialist, who have been appointed in the University prior to 29th March, 2011 in the Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/-to them UGC/CAS is admissible and also related benefits. Accordingly, Senior Scientists and Head of Krishi Vigyan Kendra are entitled to promotion/allowances. Sir, Regarding above it had been clarified by Council vide its letter No.-A.Extn.4/17/2019-AE-III date 24.02.2020 that all those Subject Matter Specialist, who have been appointed in the University prior to 29th March, 2011 in the Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/-to them UGC/CAS is admissible and also related benefits. Accordingly, Senior Scientists and Head of Krishi Vigyan Kendra are entitled to promotion/allowances. In this regard, Hon’ble Secretary and Director General of Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), New Delhi had apprised Chief Secretary to the Government of U.P. vide letter dated 2nd August, 2019 as well as the Agriculture Minister, Government of India, New Delhi had also apprised Hon’ble the Chief Minister, U.P. vide his letter dated 5th August, 2019. In connection with the above, this is also informed to you State Agriculture Universities (SAUs) of U.P. have adopted UGC pay package for the officers working in KVK which includes Senior Scientist/Head KVK and also Subject Matter Specialist who were appointed prior to 29th March, 2011. Accordingly, proposal relating to the age prescribed for as per the pay package and other related benefits can be considered by the Krishi University. Your serious consideration and appropriate action is solicited. Yours’ sincerely Sd. illegible (U.S. Gautam) Director” (English translation done by the Court) 23. University has not denied in the entire pleadings raised in the counter affidavit that these petitioners have been granted matching salary to their corresponding positions in the regular faculty position of the university and that they have receiving all such allowances on such positions that they have been holding. One of the documents that requires to be mentioned here is the letter of the Director of extension of KVK regarding list of working staff of KVK under the university as it shows that petitioners were paid salary as on 1st April, 2001 in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/-, which upon a pointed query being made, Sri Ganguli admitted to be the pay scale of the Assistant Professor/Lecturer of the university. 24. 24. In support of the argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the definition which the Uttar Pradesh State Agricultural Universities Act, 1958 prescribed originally vide clause 2 (k), according to which, the word and expression ‘teacher’ in relation to the agricultural universities would include a person appointed and recognized by the university for the purposes of imparting instructions or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes. The definition as contained originally under Section 2(k) of the Act, 1958 is reproduced hereunder: “2(k). “Teacher” means a person appointed or recognized by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programme and includes a person who may be declared by the statutes to be a teacher.” 25. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that whoever is appointed and recognized by the University and is conducting and guiding research or is doing extension programme would be a teacher. Now the words and expressions ‘extension programme’ is to be read in relation to the words and expressions ‘imparting instructions and conducting and guiding research’ and, therefore, whoever is appointed either as a Scientist in a higher category or Assistant Teacher or Subject Matter Specialist in basic category of a teacher as Assistant Professor would be taken to be conducting research work, giving instructions in the extension programme of the university which would include KVK as that is an extension programme vide MOU signed between the University and the Council. This definition of ‘teacher’ has come to be amended in the year 2019 vide amendment act being U.P. Act No.-9 of 2019 amending Section 2(k) thus: “2(k). “Teacher” must a person not below the rank of Assistant Professor duly appointed as per norms and guidelines of UGC and ICAR in this regard by the University.” 26. Now with effect from 2019, a teacher would mean a person not below the rank of Assistant Professor duly appointed as per the norms and guidelines of UGC and ICAR. 27. “Teacher” must a person not below the rank of Assistant Professor duly appointed as per norms and guidelines of UGC and ICAR in this regard by the University.” 26. Now with effect from 2019, a teacher would mean a person not below the rank of Assistant Professor duly appointed as per the norms and guidelines of UGC and ICAR. 27. Learned Senior Advocate has argued that this amended definition would have a prospective effect inasmuch as the Scientist and Research faculty appointed to KVK are appointed as per the ICAR guidelines only for the purposes of KVK as these are the centres which are run basically on the aid of the ICAR in furtherance of its object of scientific research in the field of agriculture. It is argued that in the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey and others v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Legislative Section Government of U.P. and others (Writ – A No.-7847 of 2022) decided on 17th May, 2023, it has been very clearly held that the definition would operate prospectively only so all those who were appointed to discharge duties as per the old definition of teacher, would continue to be treated as teacher. Their status, according to him, cannot be changed. 28. It is argued that petitioners since have been availing all the privileges, facilities and amenities at par with their corresponding position holders of the University, they would also be entitled to continue till the age of attaining 62 years as the University has enhanced the age of superannuation for teaching faculty from 60 years to 62 years and this amendment has taken place prior to the amendment made in the year 2019. 29. Learned Senior Advocate has also drawn the attention of the Court to three orders of the University referred to in paragraph 42 of the writ petition in respect of Dr. Ramesh Chand Rathi dated 11th August, 2020 and Dr. Vijay Vikram Singh dated 7th February, 2022 and the same University, who were also working at KVK, were permitted to attain the age of 62 years. Paragraph 42 of the writ petition is reproduced hereunder: “42. Ramesh Chand Rathi dated 11th August, 2020 and Dr. Vijay Vikram Singh dated 7th February, 2022 and the same University, who were also working at KVK, were permitted to attain the age of 62 years. Paragraph 42 of the writ petition is reproduced hereunder: “42. That, till 07.02.2022 the competent authority i.e., respondent no.2 and 3 have been adhering to the rule of continuing the identically situated teachers, namely Associate Professor in KVK, Muzaffarnagar and KVK, Dataganj Budaun – 2, by allowing them to continue to serve till attaining the age of 62 years. A photocopy of the order or retirement for Dr. Ramesh Chand Rathi dated 11.08.2020 and the order of retirement for Dr. Ajay Vikram Singh dated 07.02.2022 are collectively being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. -18 to this writ petition.” 30. Learned Senior Advocate submits that in reply to the aforesaid paragraph 42 the only reply given vide paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit is that contents being matters of record, need no reply. Paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit of the University is reproduced hereunder: “16. That the contents of paragraph no. 42 of the writ petition are matters of record and hence need no reply.” 31. Learned counsel appearing for the University has contended that petitioners since were not appointed against teaching cadre strength of the University, they cannot be taken to be teachers within the definition. He submits that even if the old definition included persons imparting instructions in research work and those involved in extension programme like research in agricultural science, would mean teacher but since petitioners were not appointed to the sanctioned faculty of the University and were appointed under a project entered with the ICAR under an MOU, they at the most can be treated to be Project Scientists and Project Officers. 32. He submits that even if they have been paid salary as per the MOU by the Council but their continuance in the establishment of the centre would be as per the MOU and not as per the age prescribed under the State Act or First Statute of University as they are not employees of the University. 32. He submits that even if they have been paid salary as per the MOU by the Council but their continuance in the establishment of the centre would be as per the MOU and not as per the age prescribed under the State Act or First Statute of University as they are not employees of the University. It is also contended by Sri Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the University that there is a letter of Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 18th February, 2020 which prescribes that the persons working at the KVK are not eligible to the career advancement scheme. He further submits that the university has never adopted these staff of the KVK to its own faculty. Sri Ganguly submits that the university though had initially been discrepant with the State Government on the issue but has ultimately stood convinced that these staff of KVK, may be in the rank of Scientists or Assistant Professors or Subject Matter Specialists, would not fall within the definition of teacher and hence would be made to retire at the age of 60 years as a staff of KVK. 33. Sri Ganguly has also drawn the attention of the Court to a latest letter issued by the Director, ICAR, Kanpur, according to which, the employees including petitioners, who were appointed at the strength of the KVK under the MOU entered with the ICAR, would not be entitled to the age of superannuation as Professor or teaching faculty of the university and if it is done it will be in gross violation of terms and conditions of the MOU. 34. Upon a pointed query being made as to whether this letter has been issued by adopting any resolution by the Council to interpret the MOU, Sri Ganguly submits that as per the recitals made in the letter dated 23rd November, 2023, it has been vetted by a law officer but there is no reference of the Council’s resolution, if any. In the last Sri Ganguli submits that the university being a State University governed by the Act, 1958 as adopted vide Government order issued on 14th June, 2022 by the State Government and the subsequent orders and made the petitioners to retire accordingly. 35. In the last Sri Ganguli submits that the university being a State University governed by the Act, 1958 as adopted vide Government order issued on 14th June, 2022 by the State Government and the subsequent orders and made the petitioners to retire accordingly. 35. Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the other university, namely, Chandra Shekhar Azad University in one connected matter, adopts the arguments advanced by Sri Ganguli with a further addition that judgment in the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (supra) would not apply as there in that case there was a resolution of the Board of Management of the university concerned taking such staff of the KVK at par with the faculty of university but here there is no such resolution placed before the Court. 36. Upon a pointed query being made as to whether any such pleadings have been made in the counter affidavit, he submits that this issue did not crop up earlier, therefore, no pleadings have been raised in this regard. 37. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Government order dated 14th June, 2022 very clearly stipulates that those appointed on non-recurring grants cannot be absorbed against the regular cadre strength of the University and that is why there was a complaint that the university’s budget under the recurring grant and otherwise the budget as a non-recurring grant granted by the State Government from time to time, was being misused. 38. Sri Mehta would, however, very fairly admit that the State Government has nothing to do with the MOU reached between the university and ICAR. He very fairly admits that neither there is any stake in respect of administration of the KVK or any financial stake of the State Government in the matter. He would further not dispute that the controversy regarding the orders dated 14th June, 2022 and the consequential order dated 29th July, 2022 and 10th November, 2022 have been held to be not having any bearing so far as the conditions of service of such officers working in KVK is concerned and they would be entitled to the benefit as admissible to the teaching faculty of the university in the Division Bench judgment delivered in the caes of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (supra) as it has already covered the subject matter in issue and in respect of the orders that are impugned herein this petition. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (supra) as it has already covered the subject matter in issue and in respect of the orders that are impugned herein this petition. Sri Mehta, however, submits that this judgment is under challenge before the Supreme Court but would further agree that only SLP has been filed and there is no further order in the matter. So as of now, according to him, he would not dispute that the judgment holds to be a good law unless and until reversed by the higher court. 39. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, noted their arguments as above and having perused the records particularly the order impugned in the petitions, I find that services of the petitioners have been dispensed with in compliance of the Government order dated 14th June, 2022, 29th July, 2022 and 10th November, 2022 on the ground that petitioners have attained superannuation at 60 years of age. Thus, petitioners have been relieved from the services of KVK. 40. Now, looking to the Government order dated 14th June, 2022 I find that such employees/teachers working in the agriculture university, who did not fall within the amended definition of Section 2(k) of the Act, 1958 where taken to be not falling in the category of teachers and, therefore, not entitled to session benefit and other retirement age benefit at par with the teaching faculty of the university. 41. Paragraph 7 of the Government order dated 14th June, 2022 says that likewise Senior Research Associates, Junior Research Associates, Senior Technical Assistant, Technical Assistant and those who are working in KVK and with ICAR would not be offered any session benefit and age of retirement like university teachers except cases where there are Court’s order operating. Paragraph 7 of the Government order dated 14th June, 2022 is reproduced hereunder: “7. Accordingly, looking to the facts stated above, I am directed to say that those employees/teachers who are working in the agricultural university, have been appointed under Section 2(k) of the U.P. Agricultural and Technical University Act, 1958 read with Rule 28 (d) of Chapter XX and Rule 4(d) of Chapter XX, would only be treated as teachers and they would only be entitled to academic benefit like retirement age and session benefit. Illegally appointed or otherwise appointed employees like Senior Research Associates, Research Associates, Junior Research Associates, Senior Technical Assistant, Technical Assistant to the KVK or other projects and ICAR would not be entitled but age of retirement and session benefits (except those cases where there are directions by the Court and are still in force). Those employees, who have not been appointed as per the rules and provisions, have been given educational/academic benefits, benefit of age of retirement and session benefit that should to be withdrawn forthwith and, accordingly, Government be informed. These directions would not be applicable where Court’s order are otherwise in force.” (English translation done by the Court) 42. The university in reply on 22nd June, 2022 very categorically made it clear to the State Government that these persons in the KVK were appointed on the post that were corresponding to the post created under the Act, 1958 read with Chapter III-4(d) of the first Statute of university by a duly constituted Selection Committee and they were also conferred upon with the status of Trainee Associates/Subject Matter Specialists as well as Assistant Professor. The Director of the centre working under the University also mentioned that those appointed as Scientists and have completed 60 years of service, are still working as they have been conferred upon with the benefit of 62 years of age of retirement. The Director accordingly asked for guidelines. The entire letter written by the Director of the KVK centre working under the university dated 22nd June, 2022 is reproduced hereunder: “Director Administration and Monitoring Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut – 250110 Letter: SVP/2022/Ni.Pr.Anu./10673 Dated: 22.06.2022 To, Special Secretary, Government of Agriculture, Education and Research Department, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. Subject: Relating age and retirement and session benefit in respect of employees and teachers working in agriculture and technical University, U.P. Sir, Reference may be had of the letter of State of Uttar Pradesh No.-237/2022/KriShiA-67-400 (27)/87 date 14th June, 2022. In that regard it is to be informed that posts have been created for all KVKs working under the aegis of the university, by Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the Government has accorded permission to make appointments thereon. Subject Matter Specialists and Co-ordinators have been appointed in KVK under Chapter XIII 4(d) of the Agricultural and Technical University Act, 1958 by a duly constituted Selection Committee. Subject Matter Specialists and Co-ordinators have been appointed in KVK under Chapter XIII 4(d) of the Agricultural and Technical University Act, 1958 by a duly constituted Selection Committee. In this above regard, I may inform that on the post of Training Associate/Subject Matter Specialist and Training Organizers/Programme Co-ordinators, appointments have been made of the employees taking them as teachers under the Agricultural University Act, 1958 vide Chapter XIII 4(d) at the centres which is financed by Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. At the level of University, the original post as Training Associate/Subject Matter Specialists, they have also been styled as ‘Assistant Teachers’ and thereafter they have been further promoted under Career Advancement Scheme with the approval and accordingly, they have been given their postname styled as ‘Associate Professor and Professor’. This is also to be informed at the same time that 20 agriculture research centres (KVK) that are being run under the aegis of university, two Krishi Vighyan Kendra namely, KVK Hastinapur and KVK Baghara are being run since much before by the NGO and were later on transferred to Govind Vallabh Pant Agriculture and Technology University, Pant Nagar. Thereafter with the division of State of Uttar Pradesh both the Krishi centres along with their employees stood transferred to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut. Likewise, in the past the Agricultre Training Science Centres (KVK) Lakhawati, Bulandshahar that was run under the control of Amar Singh, P.G. College, Lakhawati stood tranferred in certain unavoidable circumstances to Agriculture University Meerut vide letter of State Government No.-57/67-KrShiA-08/500(1)/08 date 29th August, 2008. Accordingly the scientists/employees working under the KVK Lakhawati, Bulandshahar were absorbed with the university under its letter No.-SVBHaPa/2008/Mu.Ka.A./4186 date 24.12.2008 (Appendix 1, 2 & 3). The directions as have been given vide clause 7 of the Government order No.-237/2022/KriShiA-67-400 (27)/87 date 14th June, 2022 that those who are basically appointed employees and teachers at the KVK and other projects of ICAR would not be entitled to retirement age benefit and session benefit etc (except those cases where Court’s orders are operating) and those employees who have not been appointed as per the rules/provisions as teachers would not be entitled to session benefits like educational/academic benefits of retirement age and session benefit that have been given in the past, would be immediately withdrawn and the Government should accordingly be informed. In above regard, it is to be submitted that out of 7 scientists (Appendix – 4) 5 scientists (Table No.-1 to 5) who were to retire at the age of 60 years on 30th June, 2021, have been continued in service by giving benefit of age of retirement of 62 years and rest two scientists (Table No.-6 & 7) would be attaining the age of 60 years very soon on 30th June, 2022. It is also to be informed at the same time that a project namely, NARP at the headquarters of university and other research centres of the Govind Ballab Pant, Agricultral and Technical University, Pant Nagar was funded by ICAR and the scientists are getting salary from the University budget since 1st October, 1994 under the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Govind Ballabh Pant, Agricultral and Technical University, Pant Nagar (Appendix – 6) as they were all transferred to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut upon division of State of Uttar Pradesh. The scientists/teachers whose details have been given in Table No.-1 to 7 of Appendix 5 are currently working in the university. Accordingly, it is requested that appropriate guidance be given regarding the age of retirement of those above scientists (Table No.-1 to 7 given in Appendix 4 & 5). Appropriate guidance may be given in the light of the Government order dated 14th June, 2022 as they are working in the Research centres and KVK of the University. Enclosure: As above. Signature illegible 22.06.2022 Director, Administration and Monitoring.” (English translation done by the Court) 43. However, the Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh reiterated the stand taken in the Government order dated 14th June, 2022 vide another letter dated 29th July, 2022 addressed to the agriculture universities of Kanpur Nagar, Ayodhya and Meerut but Vice-Chancellor of the University this time again asserted that such employees working in the KVK were required to be offered benefit of 62 years of age as they are entitled too. This letter of Vice-Chancellor dated 3rd August, 2022 is reproduced hereunder: “Dr. R.K. Mittal Vice-Chancellor, To, Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture Agriculture and Research Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (U.P.) Subject: Regarding age of superannuation and session benefits in respect of the employees/teachers working in agriculture and technical university of Uttar Pradesh. This letter of Vice-Chancellor dated 3rd August, 2022 is reproduced hereunder: “Dr. R.K. Mittal Vice-Chancellor, To, Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture Agriculture and Research Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (U.P.) Subject: Regarding age of superannuation and session benefits in respect of the employees/teachers working in agriculture and technical university of Uttar Pradesh. Sir, Kindly have regard of the letter of State Government No.-1246/2022/KriShiA-67-400(27) – 87 date 29.07.2022 in which vide point No.-3, the employees working in the AKRIP, NARP and Krishi Vigyan Kendra were stated to be not covered by the teaching facility within the meaning of teacher. It is again to inform that by this letter academic research and extension programme of the University will be affected. Besides above, NACK assessment of University on priority basis, as per the directives issued by the Vice-Chancellor and Hon’ble Chief Minister would be affected. This is to inform that in the University under the AKRIP project only two scientists are working as after 2007, no new appointments have been made. Likewise, in the NARP project only 5 scientists are working. Those scientists who were transferred from Govind Ballabh Pant, Agriculture and Technical University, Pant Nagar and whose salary being withdrawn w.e.f. 1st October, 1994 from the budget of the university. The Government of India and State Government has launched an ambitious programme of attaining the object to double the income of the farmer vide agricultural development schemes. In such circumstances, therefore, to reduce the age from 62 years to 60 years of such scientists working in research and extension programme would not be appropriate as per the last letter of the University dated 22.06.2022 following the fact position: (a). Scientists to the research scheme (AKRIP 75:25) were appointed akin to the post of Assistant Professor as per the prescribed norms and following the selection procedure and they are conducting research work in the assigned projects. The scientists who are working in the project of Indian Council of Agriculture Research are assigned the age of 62 years as superannuation. However, they are not entitled to session benefits. 75% of such scheme is funded by Indian Council of Agriculture Research and the contribution of State is only 25%. (b). The scientists who are working in the project of Indian Council of Agriculture Research are assigned the age of 62 years as superannuation. However, they are not entitled to session benefits. 75% of such scheme is funded by Indian Council of Agriculture Research and the contribution of State is only 25%. (b). Under the extension programme the entire project relating to the Krishi Vigyan Kendra 100% finance by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research and among the training organizers currently Senior Scientist and President and Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) have been selected. For the scientists the prescribed norm is the same as prescribed for the Assistant Professor and their selection has been made following the procedure prescribed for Assistant Professor in respect of those who have not been appointed prior to 29.03.2011, Deputy Secretary (AE) ICAR, New Delhi vide letter No.-File No.A/Ext/4/17/2019 -AE – III date 24.02.2020 has been issued in respect of Subject Matter Specialists appointed prior to 29.03.2011 (copy attached) in which meeting held on 05.11.2020 under the Chairmanship in the Rajbhawan. The minutes of the meeting vide Letter No.-7230/G.S./2020 dated 18.11.2020 date 18.11.2020 vide clause 8 as referred to this. Since all Krishi Vigyan Kendra is 100% financed by ICAR, there will be no financial burden upon the State Government. (c) The scientists working under the NARP scheme were transferred from Govind Ballabh Pant, Agriculture and Technical University, Pant Nagar and most of the scientists have already retired (copy attached). The scientists working under this scheme are being paid under the approval of competent authority from the ordinary budget of the University since 1.10.1994 and, therefore no further appointments have been made. So in a limited number the scientists are doing research and academic work and expenditure upon them is negligible. Thus, under the above circumstances, it would be appropriate to give benefit of 62 years of age of superannuation to such scientists, who have been duly selected as per the norms prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor under the U.P. Agricultural and Technical University Act, 1958 and are working under the ambitious scheme of Central Government and State Government regarding agricultural development as per the NACK assessment of the University. Enclosure: As above Yours’ sincerely Signature illegible R.K. Mittal” (English translation done by the Court) 44. Enclosure: As above Yours’ sincerely Signature illegible R.K. Mittal” (English translation done by the Court) 44. But the State Government this time not only reiterated again its stand but issued threatenings for action and also recovery under the order dated 10th November, 2022 citing paragraph 7 of the Government order dated 14th June, 2022. The order dated 10th November, 2022 passed by the Under Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Vice-Chancellor of universities of Kanpur and Meerut is reproduced hereunder: “From Ashok Kumar Singh, Under Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh. To, Vice-Chancellor, Agricultural and Technical University, Kanpur/Ayodhya/Meerut. Agricultural Education and Research Department Lucknow: 10.11.2022 Subject: Regarding the age of superannuation of session benefit to the employees and teachers working in the agriculture university. Sir, In above regard, kindly have reference of the letter-CSUE-255/PH.No.-1228(1)/2022, Date 20.09.2022 and Letter-CSUE – 877/Ph.No.-475(I)/2022, Date 20.09.2022, Agricultural University, Ayodhya letter No.-ANDUAT-07/Acc-1/Scientist: retiral dues/2022/1087, date 30.07.2022 and Agricultural University, Meerut vide letter No.-SVP/V.C./5447/2022, Date03.08.2022. 2. It is to inform that in the above regard, Government has clarified its position vide Government order No.-237/2022/KriShiA-67-400(27)/87 date 14.06.2022 regarding age of superannuation and session benefit to the employees working in the University after approval at the competent level. Clarifications have also been made with regard to the points raised in the aforesaid letter of University, vide Government order dated 14.06.2022. 3. In this regard I have been directed to state that compliance of the directives issued under clause 7 of Government order No.-order No.-237/2022/KriShiA-67-400(27)/87, dated 14.06.2022 be ensured and any tendency to reiterate the matter again and again before the State Government should be discouraged, failing which, if any action is found to be contrary to the directives issued whether administrative or financial, then appropriate action shall be ensured lawfully by fixing responsibility of the officer concerned and also recovery shall be ensured from such officers. Yours’ sincerely (Ashok Kumar Singh) Under Secretary” (English translation done by the Court) (Emphasis added) 45. Thus, from the above it is clear that right from the Government order dated 14th June, 2022 and the last order issued by the State Government dated 10th November, 2022 the stand has been that in view of the definition of Section 2(k) now stood amended in the year 2019 these employees of the KVK would not fall in that category of teachers. The university continued with the stand taken in the letter written by the Director of KVK and the Vice-Chancellor as noticed above but ultimately passed the impugned orders complying with the last order dated 10th November, 2022 of the Under Secretary in which threats were issued of coercive actions. 46. From the above, it is clear that stand of university had not changed but for letter of State Government issuing threats and resultantly University not only passed impugned orders retiring petitioners but later upon filing these writ petitions, now the Universities have filed counter affidavit also siding with the stand of State Government. Paragraph 7 of the Government order dated 14th July, 2022 as quoted above makes the privileges, amenities and facilities of the teaching faculty of the university not applicable to the corresponding position post holders of the KVK only on the ground that in view of the latest definition as incorporated by way of amendment act of 2019, they do not fall in that category. I have already reproduced both the old provision and new provision of Section 2(k) where a teacher is defined. 47. In my considered view, this controversy as to whether the corresponding position holders of KVK with that of the faculty of the university would fall within the definition of teacher or not is no more res integra for the simple reason that amendment having been made in the year 2019 and having not been given retrospective effect in its operation, will operate prospectively only and those who were getting benefits under the old provision as teachers of the university while appointed and working in KVK would continue to enjoy such privileges, amenities and facilities of the university. 48. In the case of Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey (supra) the Division Bench has very categorically held so regarding prospective operation of the amended provision vide paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 thus:- “(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". 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. 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". 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".” 49. 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".” 49. Now interestingly, Division Bench has also noticed the stand of ICAR filed before the Court by means of a short counter affidavit, vide paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment which are reproduced hereunder: “(20) The ICAR has filed a short counter affidavit which also needs to be referred to. According to the short counter affidavit, Krishi Vigyan Kendras are established under the administrative control of a Host Organization which in this case is the University. The said short counter affidavit states that the ICAR provides cent percent financial assistance to Krishi Vigyan Kendras under the 'Salary' and 'General' heads of the annual budget and further that the service conditions of the employees of the Krishi Vigyan Kendras are to be governed by the Rules, Regulations and Policies of the respective host organization. The ICAR in the said short counter affidavit has clearly stated that the University is the Host Organization and at the time of establishment of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between ICAR and the Host Organization according to which all staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras shall be borne on the establishment of the Grantee (Host Organization) only. It also provides that the administrative control over the staff employed under the Scheme, shall vest in the host institution and that placement of the staff in case the project is terminated shall be the sole responsibility of the Host Organization. (21) Para 13 of the short counter affidavit filed by the ICAR, it has been clearly stated that staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the employees of the Host Organization and not that of ICAR. Such stipulation is made in the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the ICAR and the University. The short counter affidavit further refers to a Circular of the ICAR dated 17.06.2015 according to which all staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras shall be borne on the establishment of the Host Institution and further that the service conditions including recruitment, appointment etc. of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendra shall be regulated as per the Rules and Regulations of the Host Institution. of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendra shall be regulated as per the Rules and Regulations of the Host Institution. In para -16 of the short counter affidavit, it has been stated that as per Circular dated 17.06.2015 issued by the ICAR, the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the employees of the respective Host Organizations and in this case, all the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the employees of the University and their service conditions such as appointment, probation, promotion, disciplinary matters, leave rules and age of superannuation etc. will be governed by the Rules and Regulations of the University. It also mentions that the age of retirement/superannuation is to be decided by the respective Host Organization. Thus, the case of ICAR is that the conditions of service including the age of superannuation will be as per the Rules applicable to the employees of the University and further that the staff working in Krishi Vigyan Kendras are the staff of the Host Organization which in this case is the University. (22) The State Counsel has argued that the petitioners are the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras and not that of the University. However, having regard to the stand taken by the ICAR and as per the Memorandum of Understanding entered into ICAR which is Funding Agency and the University, it is the Host Institute under whose control the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras work. As per the said Memorandum of Understanding, so far as the conditions of service of the staff of Krishi Vigyan Kendras are concerned, the same are to be governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employees of the University.” 50. Now the Division Bench proceeds to hold that teaching staff and Scientist of the university are indisputably to retire at the age of 62 years and these persons were also adopted by the Board Management to have amenities like teaching faculties of University and then there was no question to retire him at the age of 60 years and thus vide paragraph 24 finally held that the Government order dated 14th June, 2022, 29th July, 2022 and 10th November, 2022 would not come in the way of such employees working at KVK to retire at the age of 62 years. Accordingly, against the order passed by the Vice- Chancellor retiring such employees of the KVK was set aside. Accordingly, against the order passed by the Vice- Chancellor retiring such employees of the KVK was set aside. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment are reproduced hereunder: “(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. (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.” 51. I may also refer to my earlier judgment dated 16th August, 2023 given in Writ – A No.-10622 of 2022 and connected matters relating to Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur for the limited purpose that definition of teacher as has stood amended in 2019 would not be having any retrospective effect for Amendment Act being absolutely silent on this aspect. Thus, Legislature in its wisdom deliberately did not make new definition to operate retrospectively. 52. Here in this case there is no issue as to whether Board of Management had passed a resolution or not as no such ground has been taken by university. The only ground taken by the university is that it is going by Government order dated 14th June, 2022 and consequential orders. 52. Here in this case there is no issue as to whether Board of Management had passed a resolution or not as no such ground has been taken by university. The only ground taken by the university is that it is going by Government order dated 14th June, 2022 and consequential orders. As I have noticed above the relevant sub-clause (viii) of clause 7 of MOU, which provides that privileges, amenities and facilities shall be available to such KVK employees and petitioners have been offered not only the positions like Assistant Professors and Subject Matter Specialists but were also given benefits of UGC scale meant for teaching faculties of university and also allowances accordingly and some of the petitioners were even promoted under CAS and further that the KVK centres are being run at a very large scale with a lot of infrastructural facilities to carry out research work both in agricultural fields and the laboratories and further imparting instructions and taking classes for research purposes as an extension programme of university under the ambitious schemes and programmes of agriculture development of Central and State Government. 53. It is neither a case of the university, nor of the State that petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification of Assistant Professor of the University when they were appointed either as Research Associate or Subject Matter Specialist in different sub-disciplines of agriculture science and so also regarding their meeting parameters and attaining qualifications as prescribed by the UGC while they have been given promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). I may here refer to the latest UGC regulations dated 18th July, 2018 that provide for Master’s degree in the subject with eight years experience as Assistant Professor, which may be teaching in university or college or Research University/National Level Institutions equal to that Assistant Professor of university or college. The eligibility as prescribed for by the UGC as on date if taken into account of Associate Professor vide Regulations published on 18th July, 2018 is as under: “II. Associate Professor: Eligibility (A or B) : A. I) A good academic record, having a Ph.D. degree with performing ability of high professional standard as certified by an Expert Committee constituted by the University concerned for the said purpose. ii) Eight years experience of teaching in a University/College and/or research in a University/national-level institutions equal to that of Assistant Professor in a University/College. ii) Eight years experience of teaching in a University/College and/or research in a University/national-level institutions equal to that of Assistant Professor in a University/College. iii). A significance contribution to knowledge in the subject concerned, as evidenced by the quality publications. OR B. A traditional or a professional artist, having highly commendable professional achievement in the subject concerned, has a Master’s degree, who has: i) Been recognized artist of Stage/Radio/TV; ii) Eight years of outstanding performance in the field of specialisation; iii) Experience of designing new courses and/or curricula; iv) Participated in Seminars/Conferences in reputed institutions; and v) The ability to explain with logical reasoning the subject concerned and adequate knowledge to teach theory with illustrations in the said discipline.” (Emphasis added) 54. I do not find any difference in discharge of duties in terms of research work done by the faculty members of the University and such employees of the KVK, at least there is no such pleadings either by University or by the State Government. Whatever short counter affidavit was filed by ICAR in the matter decided by Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow, would obviously will be its stand here also because before the same High Court the Council cannot take two different stand in similar matters. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel, of course, raised a point that ICAR should have been a party being a funding agency, but I do not find there to be any direction by ICAR that it was withdrawing salary part of fund, meant to be paid to such teachers, if retiring at the age of 62 years. In such circumstances, petitioners are definitely not aggrieved by any action of ICAR. Neither there is any order by ICAR, nor any relief is claimed against it. Thus, ICAR is neither a necessary party, nor even a proper party. The letter of the Director, ICAR, Kanpur that has been filed along with counter affidavit by the State respondents for interpreting the MOU, I find it to be based on a legal advise. Any interpretation of MOU is either to be done by the Court in the event of dispute or by the signatories to or the parties to the MOU after holding consultation. Any interpretation of MOU is either to be done by the Court in the event of dispute or by the signatories to or the parties to the MOU after holding consultation. There is nothing to show that this interpretation was done after the Council held any such discussion in its meeting of Board of Directors by holding consultation with the grantee university on the issue and, therefore, such legal advice cannot be taken to be the stand of the Council or of the University. This letter has thus no significance or relevance to the matter in issue. Such a legal advise to interpret MOU can neither have any legal force, nor can validate any action of State or university, impugned herein this petition. 55. An autonomous body can be creation of a statute, Central or State, a society under the Society Registration Act, a company under the Company’s Act or a body registered under the Indian Trust Act. Autonomous body has its own governing body and has complete autonomy in its administration and management and if not substantially funded i.e. 75% substantive funding, it may have its own sets of rules. Autonomous body can enter an agreement with another body by signing MOU and then it is the memorandum of understanding that governs the field for which it is signed. The government which is neither party to the MOU, nor funding the project, can have no say in so far as service conditions of employees appointed and working under the MOU. The parties to MOU only shall have say in such matters. Here in the case in hand ICAR is funding authority to the project and has signed MOU laying down condition that employees shall be appointed by the University and shall be entitled to the same privileges, amenities and facilities as admissible to the employees of the university holding corresponding positions. So long as Council does not stop funding for such Scientists and Subject Matter Specialists if they are allowed the benefit of age of 62 years for superannuation and MOU remains intact, the government that has no stake in that, cannot take a contrary stand. 56. So long as Council does not stop funding for such Scientists and Subject Matter Specialists if they are allowed the benefit of age of 62 years for superannuation and MOU remains intact, the government that has no stake in that, cannot take a contrary stand. 56. The University being an autonomous body if extended academic benefits, amenities and other service benefits like age of retirement and session benefits to those involved in research in agriculture science at Krishi Vigyan Kendras run under its aegis, more especially when no state government budget is involved, it cannot be forced by the State government to withdraw such benefits. Clause ‘7’ of the government order dated 22.6.2022 is highly misplaced interpretation of teachers and an attempt to define KVK staff. Once the University had taken a clear stand in its two replies, it could not have been threatened to follow government order dated 22.6.2022. The universities have been virtually terrorized and it is no doubt, an un-holistic attempt to make inroads into the autonomy of such institutions to make them subordinate. This is absolutely untenable. 57. I further find that university has acted simply on dictates of the Government without applying its own mind and without referring to its earlier stand in the matter which, therefore, renders the order bad in law for want of due application of mind. If one looks at the order dated 11th November, 2022 impugned in the writ petition, one would definitely conclude that recitals therein are clearly indicative of non-application of mind by the authority of an autonomous authority despite having taken contrary stand to what Government had dictated earlier. The university virtually laid its authority in the feet of the Government. For better appreciation the order impugned dated 11th November, 2022: “Office of Director, Administration and Monitoring Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Agricultural and Technical University, Meerut-250110 Letter:Sambhand/2022/Ni.Pr.Anu./11475 Date:11th November, 2022 Office Order State of Uttar Pradesh vide letter No.-237/2022/KriShiA-67-400 (27) 87 dated 14.6.2022, letter No.-1246/2022/KriShiA-67-400(27)/87 dated 29th July, 2022 and letter No.-1544/2022/KriShiA-67-400(27)87 dated 10.11.2022 issued in terms of judgment dated 21st March, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad in Special Appeal No.-75 of 2022, Engineer Dr. Anil Kumar Katiyar, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Badhra, Muzaffarnagar-I (Principal appointment as Training Associate upon the post created by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research) is being retired and being relieved today on 11.11.2022 with immediate effect upon attaining the age of 60 years with approval at the competent level. Sd. illegible Director, Administration and Monitoring” (English translation done by the Court) 58. This is very unfortunate that finding no answer to the stand of university in its previous two letters, the State Government threatened university of adverse action and recovery. This Court fails to understand as to how the State Government that was not party to MOU could have taken any action against university for violation of any term and condition of MOU and that too without any enquiry and as to how it could have ordered for recovery of money funded by ICAR without there being any objection by ICAR. There was no involvement of State Government in running KVK and payment of salary of KVK men. The State Government having found no means to cow-down university fell prey to false ego of its advisers and officials and gagged the mouth of Director and Vice-Chancellor of university to pass impugned orders to retire petitioners at the age of 60 years. This is an absolutely arbitrary exercise of power by State Government and in my considered view beyond its competence in the matter of MOU between ICAR and university, both the autonomous bodies and that too in the absence of resolution of ICAR supporting such questionable interpretation. 59. Thus, petitioners, therefore, are held entitled to all such benefits including the benefit of age of superannuation at par with the corresponding position holders in the teaching faculty of the university. 60. 59. Thus, petitioners, therefore, are held entitled to all such benefits including the benefit of age of superannuation at par with the corresponding position holders in the teaching faculty of the university. 60. I may hasten to clarify here that by this judgment I am not holding petitioners to be part of the teaching faculty of the university as they are not teachers of the university in stricto sensu for not being appointed to sanctioned strength of the University but since they are appointed by the university upon a post of Scientist/Research Associate/Subject Matter Specialist and are further given benefits under the CAS as has been made applicable by the UGC to the university and that MOU requires university to give all privileges, amenities and facilities of the corresponding position holders of the university to men employed for KVK, and ICAR is providing fund for their salary and allowance, they are held entitled to all such privileges, amenities and facilities as are admissible to the Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor of the university. 61. In view of the above, writ petitions succeed and are allowed. 62. The orders impugned passed in respect of the petitioners retiring them at the age of 60 years in respective petitions hereby quashed. 63. The status of petitioners in the Krishi Vigyan Kendra of their respective universities shall stand restored up to the age of 62 years. They will be retiring at the age of 62 years and shall be entitled to all service benefits including the arrears of salary for the period till they have attained or would be attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 62 years, as the case may be.