JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present appeal, filed under the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, emanates from the judgment dated 02.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. 2. Learned advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla appearing for the appellant-University has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petition since the respondent No. 1, who was serving in the appellant-University and employees like her are governed by the State Government Rules and accordingly, her age of retirement is 58 years and she reached the age of superannuation on 30.09.2017. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the notification dated 14.10.2020 issued by the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, which emphasis the age of employees working in the Institution of Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Jamnagar (IPGTRA) and Shree Gulabkunverba Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Jamnagar and the Indian Institute of Ayurveda Pharmaceutical Sciences, Jamnagar will not apply retrospectively. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla has submitted that the learned Single Judge has also considered the provisions of Fundamental Rules 56(a), while allowing the writ petition, which is misconceived, as the same would not apply in the case of the petitioner (respondent No. 1). He has pointed out that though a proposal was sent to the respondent No. 2-Union of India to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees from 58 years to 60 years, the same was not approved by the Union of India and hence, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim the retirement on attaining the age of 60 years. It is submitted that a conscious decision was taken by the appellant-University vide circular(s) dated 18/31.03.2016 that except the subject of superannuation age, other benefits are granted on service related matters, as per the Central Civil Services Rules promulgated by the Government of India. The same are made applicable to the employees of the appellant- University. It is submitted that a conscious decision was taken by the appellant-University vide circular(s) dated 18/31.03.2016 that except the subject of superannuation age, other benefits are granted on service related matters, as per the Central Civil Services Rules promulgated by the Government of India. The same are made applicable to the employees of the appellant- University. While referring to the communication dated 16.01.2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush, it is submitted that the issue of extending the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years was not accepted and it is specifically held that the same will apply prospectively, after issuing appropriate notification and amended rules. 4. While referring to the affidavit filed by the State Government, which is incorporated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment, it is submitted that the State Government has categorically stated that the respondent No. 1 will be governed by the State of Gujarat Rules, which determines the age of superannuation at 58 years. Respondent No. 1. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Shushil Shukla appearing for the respondent No. 2 has adopted the arguments made by learned advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla appearing on behalf of the appellant-University. 6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Ms. Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1(original petitioner) at the outset, has submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable since the appellant-University is governed by the provisions of the Central Civil Services Rules and all the funds are being extended by the Central Government however, Union of India has chosen not to file appeal. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Vinodbhai Khodidas Vs. Patel Pravinbhai Kachrabhai, 2021 (3) GLR 2601 . 7. While referring to the Board Meeting, which was held by the appellant-University on 16.10.2015, learned advocate Ms. Pandya has submitted that it was resolved by the appellant- University that all the service matters of the employees of the appellant-University will be governed by the Central Civil Services Rule, Government of India. Patel Pravinbhai Kachrabhai, 2021 (3) GLR 2601 . 7. While referring to the Board Meeting, which was held by the appellant-University on 16.10.2015, learned advocate Ms. Pandya has submitted that it was resolved by the appellant- University that all the service matters of the employees of the appellant-University will be governed by the Central Civil Services Rule, Government of India. Accordingly, she has referred that thereafter, a proposal was also sent by the appellant-University for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees from 58 years to 60 years to the Ministry of Ayush. She has submitted that meanwhile the respondent No. 1-workman reached the age of superannuation in 2017. She has submitted that as per the notification dated 14.10.2020 and subsequent communication dated 27.11.2020, the Central Government Servants and employees of the Autonomous Bodies under the Central Government have to be retired on reaching the age of 60 years. She has submitted that this notification as well as the communication will apply in case of the respondent No. 1 as the appellant- University is governed by the said notification/ communication. She has further submitted that as per the Fundamental Rule 56, which has been referred by the learned Single Judge, the retirement age of Government servant is 60 years and accordingly, the respondent No. 1 was entitled to be retired at the age of 60 years however, she was made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. 8. Learned advocate Ms. Pandya has further submitted that after the aforesaid notification was issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Ayush, the case of the respondent No. 1 will be governed in light of the provisions reflected therein as well as on the circulars issued by the appellant-University prior to that. She has submitted that in fact, the age of superannuation of teaching staff has also been increased from 58 years to 60 years by the appellant-University, whereas in case of non-teaching staff, the same is maintained as 58 years. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. Vs. Radhey Shyam Gautam and Anr. (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 59. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. Vs. Radhey Shyam Gautam and Anr. (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 59. She has also referred to the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that the Union of India has in fact, not raised such contentions and hence, the learned Single Judge has precisely allowed the writ petition. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained. 9. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 10. The respondent No. 1 - (original petitioner) was serving as a Head Clerk (non-teaching staff) in the Institute of Post Graduate Training and Research in Ayurveda (IPGTRA) in the appellant-Gujarat Ayurveda University, Jamnagar at the time of filing of the writ petition. The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “15(A) hold and declare that petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years as per Office Memorandum dated 30.5.1998 and the Board’s decision taken in the meeting of 16.10.2015 as reflected in Circular dated 18/19.3.2016. (B) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to retire the petitioner from service on her attaining the age of 58 years and continue her in service till she attains the age of 60 years in view of Office Memorandum dated 30.5.1998 and the Board’s decision taken in the meeting of 16.10.2015 as reflected in Circular dated 18/19.3.2016 and grant all other consequential benefits, or in the alternative. (C) direct the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years and grant all other consequential benefits, and award the cost of the present petition.......” 11. Thus, the respondent No. 1 has filed the writ petition claiming enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years, one month prior to her retirement. She reached the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30.09.2017. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed the appellant-University and the respondent-authorities to revise her pension and also to grant her benefits. 12. She reached the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30.09.2017. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed the appellant-University and the respondent-authorities to revise her pension and also to grant her benefits. 12. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that the Office Memorandum of 30.05.1998, applicable to the Central Government employees governing the age of retirement as 60 years, will also apply in her case also. It appears that the appellant- University held a meeting on 16.10.2015 and in item No. 17, the Board resolved that all the service matters will be governed as per the Central Civil Service Rule, Government of India however, subsequently the appellant-University issued a circulars dated 18/31.03.2016 , which is as under: “According to decision of 24th meeting of the Board, P.G.T & R held on 16.10.2015 vide item No. 17, it is decided to take all service matters as per Central Civil Service Rules, Government of India for employees of I.P.G.T. and R.A. w.e.f. 01.04.2016, except superannuation age.” 13. Thus, it was clarified that the decision which was taken on 24th Meeting of the Board held on 16.10.2015 in item No. 17, that except “superannuation age” all the service matters of the employees would be governed by the Central Civil Services Rules. Vide this circular, the appellant-University had clarified that the issue with regard to age of superannuation was not decided in the Board Meeting. Hence, the respondent No. 1 cannot pitch her case on the premise of the OM dated 30.05.1998, which indubatibly applies to the Central Government employees. 14. Thereafter on 28.10.2016, in fact, the appellant-Institution wrote a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Ayush, Government of India for enhancing the age of retirement to 60 years in the autonomous bodies/organizations. Such request was reiterated on 30.12.2016 and ultimately, on 16.01.2017, the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush clarified as under: “(i).......The Ministry gives financial assistance to IPGTRA in the form of GIA. (ii) The IPGTRA is under the administrative control of Government of Gujarat (Department of Health & Family Welfare). (iii) The IPGTRA follows Government of Gujarat Service Rules i.r.o. their non-teaching Group ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ employees. (iv) The IPGTRA follows UGC Rules i.r.o. their teaching staff. (ii) The IPGTRA is under the administrative control of Government of Gujarat (Department of Health & Family Welfare). (iii) The IPGTRA follows Government of Gujarat Service Rules i.r.o. their non-teaching Group ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ employees. (iv) The IPGTRA follows UGC Rules i.r.o. their teaching staff. (v) The IPGTRA’s argument as mentioned in Para 2 of your letter under reference cannot be considered as a ground for raising the age of superannuation of Group ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ employees of IPGTRA from 58 years to 60 years, as per Central Government Rules, as they are following the Government of Gujarat Rules i.r.o. these employees. (vi) AS per Para 1(a) of the O.M. of DoPT referred to in Para 3 above (p.3-4/c.), the age of retirement shall be extended by two years with prospective effect through appropriate notification amending the rules in consultation with the administrative ministry concerned, in cases where the autonomous bodies/organizations are following the rules as applicable to Central Government employees and where the pay scales and conditions of service are identical to Central Government employees, etc...... 2. Therefore, the subject proposal of IPGTRA can be processed/considered in consultation with DoPT, only when the Government of Gujarat formally entrusts the administrative control of its non-teaching Group ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ employees, to the Ministry and the Central Government Rules are made applicable to them.” 15. A plain and simple reading of the communication dated 16.01.2017 manifest that the Government on India has rejected the proposal of raising the retirement age of superannuation of non-teaching staff of Group ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ employees of IPGTRA, from 58 years to 60 years since such staff as the IPGTRA is following the Government of Gujarat Rules and is under the administrative control of the Government of Gujarat. It is informed by the Central government that age of superannuation can only be raised when the Government of Gujarat entrusts the administrative ministry of such employees to the Ministry of Ayush. It is informed by the Central government that age of superannuation can only be raised when the Government of Gujarat entrusts the administrative ministry of such employees to the Ministry of Ayush. It is further clarified that as per the Office Memorandum of DoPT referred in paragraph No. 3 above, the age of retirement shall be extended by two years with prospective effect through appropriate notification amending the rules in consultation with the administrative ministry concerned, in the cases where autonomous bodies/organizations are following the rules as applicable to the Central Government employees and where the pay-scales and conditions of service are identical to the Central Government employees etc. 16. Again a proposal was sent by the appellant on 14.08.2017, for extension of age from 58 years to 60 years. However, it appears that the proposal was not accepted. 17. The respondent No. 1 has primarily placed reliance on the notification dated 14.10.2020 issued by the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, wherein it was decided that the age of retirement of employees of the Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, as mentioned under Sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of the Institute of Teaching and Research in Ayurveda Act, 2020 (for short “the Act of 2020”), is increased from 58 years to 60 years. 18. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that as per the provisions of Sub-section (d) of Section 5 of the Act of 2020 promulgated vide notification dated 14.10.2020, all the terms and conditions of the appellant-University governing pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters will be at par with the Central Government employees. 19. In support of her submissions, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on the communication dated 27.11.2020 issued by the Government of India clarifying the provision of Sub-Section (d) of Section 5 of the Act of 2020, wherein it is clarified that as per the Fundamental Rule 56(a), the retirement age of the employees of the Central Government and employees of the autonomous bodies/ organizations under the Central Government is 60 years. Sub-Section (d) of Section 5 of the Act of 2020 reads as under: “5(d) every person who is employed in the “Anteceding Institutions immediately before such commencement shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, become the employee of the Institute and hold his office or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund, and other matters as he would have held the same if this Act had not been passed, and shall continue to do so unless and until his employment is terminated or until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by regulations.” 20. However, it is clarified vide communication dated 27.11.2020 that the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(a) is applicable to the employees of IPGTRA, as in the case of employees of other autonomous bodies under this Ministry, and enhance the retirement age of non-teaching staff from 58 years to 60 years. 21. Learned advocate Ms. Pandya appearing for the respondent No. 1 is unable to establish that the Act of 2020, which was promulgated vide notification dated 14.10.2020, is retrospectively applicable to the employees of the appellant-University. For the first time in the communication dated 27.11.2020, which is issued after retirement of the respondent No. 1, the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush has clarified that the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(a) will be applicable to the employees of ITRA and employees of autonomous bodies. Thus, the intention of the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush is reflected from the communication dated 27.11.2020, which shows prospective applicability of the Fundamental Rules to the employees of the institutes like the appellant. 22. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition has placed reliance on the Fundamental Rule 56(a), which, in our considered opinion, was misconceived as the same was applicable for the first time in view of the aforesaid promulgation of the Act of 2020 and the communication dated 14.10.2020 i.e. after retirement of the respondent No. 1. 22. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition has placed reliance on the Fundamental Rule 56(a), which, in our considered opinion, was misconceived as the same was applicable for the first time in view of the aforesaid promulgation of the Act of 2020 and the communication dated 14.10.2020 i.e. after retirement of the respondent No. 1. Thus, before the respondent No. 1 was to retire in the year 2017 on reaching the age of 58 years, the appellant-University had already clarified that the issue of age of superannuation vide circulars dated 18/31.03.2016 that except the issue of superannuation of the employees of the appellant-University, all the service matters will be governed, as per the provisions of the Central Civil Services Rules. The respondent No. 1 cannot place reliance on the proposal sent by the appellant-University to the Union of India for enhancement of the age for its non-teaching staff. Vide communication dated 16.01.2017, the Union of India has clarified that such enhancement of the age by two years can only be done or extended by way of appropriate notification amending the rules in consultation with the Administrative Ministry in those cases, where the autonomous bodies/organizations have followed the rules, as applicable to the Central Government employees. No notification is pointed out to us to that effect, which is issued either by the Central Government or by the appellant- University enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years before the retirement of the respondent No. 1. 23. Till 14.08.2017, the appellant-University, in which the respondent No. 1 was serving, the proposal of enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years for non-teaching staff was pending. Thus, there is nothing to show on record, which clarifies or establishes that before the retirement of the respondent No. 1, any notifications/Rules are issued or framed either by the Central Government or appellant-University enhancing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years for non-teaching staff. 24. The learned Single Judge thus, fell in error in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 seeking extension of her superannuation age from 58 year to 60 years. 25. The reliance placed by learned advocate Ms. Pandya on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gautam and Anr. 24. The learned Single Judge thus, fell in error in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 seeking extension of her superannuation age from 58 year to 60 years. 25. The reliance placed by learned advocate Ms. Pandya on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gautam and Anr. (supra) will not apply in the facts of the case as there is nothing to show that the Central Government had in fact, approved the request of the appellant-University seeking enhancement of superannuation age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years before retirement of the respondent No. 1. The ratio of the said decision will not also apply since the notification, on which reliance in placed by the respondent No. 1 has been issued subsequently and it has no retrospective effect. 26. There is another issue, which is raised with regard to non-maintainability of the present appeal. In our considered opinion, such submission does not merit acceptance and is misconceived since the writ petition has been filed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant-University seeking the aforesaid benefits and the learned Single Judge has allowed the same by directing the appellant-University to confer the benefits to the petitioner by treating her retired at the age of 60 years. However, before us, a complete volte face is taken that the appeal filed by the University is not maintainable. Hence, the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Patel Vinodbhai Khodidas (supra) in this regard will not apply in the present case. 27. Thus, in light of the foregoing observations, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition is hereby quashed and set aside. As a sequel, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.