JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865 emanates from the judgment and order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition with the costs of Rs.50,000/- filed by the appellant-Shri J. H. Shora Vidya Mandir Primary School. 2. Before we proceed on merits, it is reported to us that the respondent-Teacher is more than 75 years of age. He reached the age of superannuation on 01.06.2009. Till today, he is not paid a single penny of his retirement benefits or any benefits, as directed by the Tribunal (Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal). The respondent-teacher is embroiled in array of litigation, and there is checkered history. Though, he has been successful in the litigation, she has not enjoyed the fruits. THE BRIEF FACTS 3. The respondent was serving as a Teacher in the appellant-School. It appears that on 14.06.1993, the appellant-School terminated 5 teachers including the present respondent. Accordingly, they filed Application No. 217 of 1993 and by the interim order, the Tribunal directed not to implement the order till further orders are passed. By the order dated 29.11.2004, the Tribunal directed the appellant-School to reinstate the respondent-Teacher along with other teachers. It was also further directed to pay them pay-scale and allowances, as per the Government standards. 4. The appellant-School filed a Review Application No. 02 of 2005, which was rejected on 24.03.2009. During the pendency of the review application, four teachers entered into compromise with the appellant-School except the respondent-Teacher. The rejection order dated 24.03.2009 was challenged by the Management by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 13844 of 2012 before this Court, which was also rejected by the order dated 11.01.2013. 5. Again the respondent-Teacher was removed from service on 15.05.2006. The said removal was assailed by the respondent-Teacher by filing Application No. 68 of 2006 before the Tribunal. By the judgment and order dated 17.07.2012, the Tribunal set aside the action of the appellant-School of removing her from service on 15.05.2006 and further directed the appellant - School to pay all her retirement benefits. It is specifically recorded by the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 40B of the Gujarat Primary Education Rules, 1949 was violated. By the judgment and order dated 17.07.2012, the Tribunal set aside the action of the appellant-School of removing her from service on 15.05.2006 and further directed the appellant - School to pay all her retirement benefits. It is specifically recorded by the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 40B of the Gujarat Primary Education Rules, 1949 was violated. The said decision of the Tribunal dated 17.07.2012 was challenged by the appellant - School by filing writ petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 13845 of 2012, which was withdrawn on 12.12.2012 for filing a review before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the appellant-School filed a Review Application No. 1 of 2012 (New Review No. 24 of 2014), which was also rejected vide order dated 27.07.2021 by the Tribunal. In the meantime, the respondent-Teacher filed Execution Application No. 07 of 2005 (New No. 89 of 2014), wherein the Tribunal directed the appellant-School to pay an amount of Rs.10,51,743/- along with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The respondent-Teacher also filed Execution Application No. 17 of 2012 and the Tribunal directed to pay an amount of Rs.9,07,911/- along with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant-School filed Review Application No. 03 of 2021 in Execution Application No. 89 of 2014 (Old Execution Application No. 7 of 2005). The same was rejected by the Tribunal by the order dated 28.09.2022. Thereafter, the appellant-School filed Review Application No. 5 of 2021 in New Execution Application No. 322 of 2014 which was also rejected by the order dated 28.09.2022. It appears that thereafter, again a review application was filed by the appellant-School being Restoration Application No. 5 of 2021 which was allowed by the Tribunal and ultimately, the Review Application No. 24 of 2014 was restored. Thereafter, the appellant-School filed the captioned writ petition challenging the order dated 23.12.2022 and 17.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge rejected the said writ petition and thus, the appellant-School has preferred the preset appeal. As on today, the Execution Application No. 01 of 2024 filed by the respondent-Teacher is pending. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHLAF OF THE APPELLANT-SCHOOL 6. Learned advocate Ms. Kajal Kalwani appearing for the appellant-School has vehemently submitted that the appellant-School was constrained to terminate the services of the respondent-Teacher since the appellant-School had closed down in the year 2006. As on today, the Execution Application No. 01 of 2024 filed by the respondent-Teacher is pending. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHLAF OF THE APPELLANT-SCHOOL 6. Learned advocate Ms. Kajal Kalwani appearing for the appellant-School has vehemently submitted that the appellant-School was constrained to terminate the services of the respondent-Teacher since the appellant-School had closed down in the year 2006. She has submitted that necessary approval was also sought from the competent-State Authority to close the appellant-School however, nothing was done and ultimately, since there were no students available, the appellant-School was constrained to terminate the services of the respondent-Teacher as her services were not required. She has referred to the communication dated 27.04.2002 written to the District Education Officer and Director of Primary Education Office, which are produced along with the further affidavit. It is submitted that as per the requirement of the provisions of Section 40B(1)(a) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 (in short “Rules”), the appellant-School had submitted an application before the respondent No. 2-State Authority seeking approval for termination of service of the respondent-Teacher and since there was no response from the respondent No. 2 within 45 days, as per Sub-section 2 of Section 40B of the Rules, the approval of terminating the services of the respondent-Teacher is considered to be deemed approved and hence, the service of the respondent-Teacher was terminated vide order dated 15.05.2006. It is submitted that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge fell in error in not appreciating the provisions of Section 40B of the Rules and hence, it is urged that the order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned advocate Ms. Kajal Kalwani for the appellant - School has further submitted that the other teachers, who were initially terminated along with the present appellant, had entered into compromise and withdrew their application filed before the Tribunal however, the respondent-Teacher did not enter into compromise and ultimately, the appellant-School was not left with any option but to terminate her services, as it was closed. Learned advocate Ms. Kajal Kalwani in support of her submissions has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidhayalaya Sangathan Vs. S.C. Sharma, (2005) 2 SCC 363 . Learned advocate Ms. Kajal Kalwani in support of her submissions has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidhayalaya Sangathan Vs. S.C. Sharma, (2005) 2 SCC 363 . Heavy reliance has been placed by her on the decision of the learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court rendered on 15.10.2003 in the case of Mahatma Gandhi Taluka Shiksan Mandal, Chopda Vs. Sambhaji A Patil, 2003 Law Suit (Bombay) 941. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court of the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2001 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 1607 to 1615 of 2001 in the case of Pujya Sane Guruji Vidya Prasarak Mandal and Ors. Vs. Prakash M. Patil and Another. Thus, it is urged that since the appellant-School is closed down it will not be in a position to pay the amount, as directed by the Tribunal in execution applications. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-TEACHER 8. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Darshan Kothari appearing for the respondent-Teacher has submitted that right from the inception i.e. when the respondent was appointed as a teacher, the appellant-School has been harassing her and she has been terminated twice and on both the occasions, the Tribunal has set aside the order of termination. He has submitted that the respondent-Teacher was constrained to file various applications including the Execution Applications to claim the benefits however, as on today nothing is paid by the appellant-School. Learned advocate Mr. Kothari has contended that the appellant-School in fact, resumed functioning in the year 2008 and 11 teachers were appointed however, the appellant-School never attempted to appoint the respondent-Teacher, after she was terminated on the ground of closure of appellant-School. It is submitted that the contention raised before the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge with regard to the closure of appellant-School is disbelieved, since though the School had sought approval for closing the same, no orders have been passed by the competent authorities approving the action of the closure and ultimately, in the year 2008, the appellant-School started functioning and in the meanwhile, the respondent-Teacher had retired. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Kothari has submitted that before the Tribunal, it was contended by the appellant-School that the respondent-Teacher was to retire at the age of 55 years on 01.06.2006 and before reaching that date, 15 days prior, she was terminated. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Kothari has submitted that before the Tribunal, it was contended by the appellant-School that the respondent-Teacher was to retire at the age of 55 years on 01.06.2006 and before reaching that date, 15 days prior, she was terminated. While referring to the provisions of Section 40B of the Rules, it is submitted that the same would not apply in the case of the respondent-Teacher, as she was neither dismissed nor removed in view of the disciplinary proceedings but she was terminated in view of the closure of appellant-School and since the competent authorities has not passed any order under the provisions of the Rules, there was no effective closure of the appellant-School. Thus, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 10. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. By the captioned writ petition, the appellant - petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Tribunal rejecting their Review Application No. 24 of 2014, which was preferred by them against the order dated 17.07.2012 passed in Application No. 68 of 2006. The facts with regard to her appointment, termination and the litigation, as recorded hereinabove, are not in dispute and hence, we are not reiterating the same. 11. Both the termination orders initially, the order dated 14.06.1993 was set aside and the subsequent order dated 15.05.2006 was also set aside by the Tribunal. In the order dated 17.07.2012 passed in Application No. 68 of 2006, the Tribunal has declared the action of the appellant-School in terminating her service as illegal and the they were directed to confer her all the retirement benefits as if she had retired from service. It is recorded that the respondent - Teacher has reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the competent authority has not granted any approval for closing down the appellant-School. It is recorded that the respondent - Teacher has reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2009. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the competent authority has not granted any approval for closing down the appellant-School. At this stage, it would apposite to notice that the appellant-School a show-cause notice dated 02.01.2006 to the respondent - Teacher calling upon the explanation from her as to why her services shall not be terminated due to non-availability of the students, the classes from 1 to 4 were closed since 1993 to 1994 and classes 5 to 7 in the year 2000 and 2001, and there was no income of the appellant-School. The respondent-Teacher accordingly, gave her reply on 07.01.2006 and has stated that since her application is pending before the Tribunal, no order may be passed. We may mention here that the execution applications filed by the respondent-Teacher claiming the benefits as directed by the Tribunal, after her first termination was set aside, were pending. However, she was terminated on 15.05.2006. 12. The appellant-School is unable to dispute the fact of resuming the functioning of the Classes. As recorded by the Tribunal in the month of June, 2008, again the classes from standard 5 to 7 were resumed and a public advertisement was also given by the appellant-School seeking appointments of the teachers. It was declared that presently the classes from standard 1 to 8 have been continued and there are at least 300 students. In the year 2008, 11 teachers were serving in the appellant-School. Thus, when the respondent-Teacher was terminated on 15.05.2006 on the ground that there were no students in the classes for standard 1 to 7 and there was no income to the school, the services of the respondent-Teacher was terminated and thereafter, in the year June, 2008, the appellant-School issued advertisement, pursuant to which classes for Standard 1 to 8 were started and 300 students were studying and 11 teachers were also appointed and were rendering their services however, the appellant-School did not think fit to re-appoint or continue the respondent, though her applications before the Tribunal for claiming the benefits were still pending. This depicts the mala fide intention of the appellant-School, which was bent upon to see that the service of the respondent is put to an end by any means. This depicts the mala fide intention of the appellant-School, which was bent upon to see that the service of the respondent is put to an end by any means. The appellant-School is unable to dispute the facts recorded by the Tribunal in the judgment and order dated 17.07.2012 with regard to the re-functioning of the school and appointment of 11 teachers and the strength of 300 students. 13. It appears that with regard to the contentions raised about the compliance of the provisions of Section 40B of the Rules, the Tribunal has specifically recorded that no documentary evidence or oral evidence has been produced in this regard. It is recorded that there is no evidence to show that on 28.02.2006, the appellant-School had sent the proposal to the competent authorities, as required under the provisions of Section 40B of the Rules. The communication dated 28.02.2006 (Page No. 31) reveals that the appellant-School had requested the District Education Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Savarkundla to grant approval for terminating the services of the respondent-Teacher since the appellant-School was closed. It is the case of the appellant-School that since no decision has been conveyed by the competent authorities, the approval sought for terminating services of the respondent - Teacher is deemed to have been approved under the provisions of Section 40B of the Rules, after completion of 45 days. 14. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 40B of the Rules, which falls under Chapter 7 of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949, which is as under: “CHAPTER VII B. Procedure for Imposition of Penalty on Teachers of Recognized Private Primary schools 40B. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of teachers: (1) (a) No teacher of a recognize private primary school shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank nor shall his service be otherwise terminated until: (i) he has been given by the manager an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. (ii) the action proposed to be taken in regard to him has been approved in writing by the administrative officer of the school board in the jurisdiction of which the private primary school is situate. (ii) the action proposed to be taken in regard to him has been approved in writing by the administrative officer of the school board in the jurisdiction of which the private primary school is situate. Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a teacher who is appointed temporarily for a period less than a year or a teacher appointed temporarily on a leave vacancy for a period less than a year. Explanation - A teacher who is appointed temporarily for a period for less than a year or a teacher who is appointed temporarily o a leave vacancy for a period of such vacancy shall not be deemed to be a teacher appointed temporarily for such period, if he has at any time prior to such appointment served as a teacher either in the same private primary school or in another private primary school under the same management and the aggregate of the period of such past service and the period of service for which he is appointed exceeds one year. (b) The administrative officer shall communicate to the manager of the school in writing his approval or disapproval of the action proposed, within a period of forty five days from the date of the receipt by the administrative officer of such proposal. (2) where the administrative officer fails to communicate either approval or disapproval within a period of forty five days specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1), the proposed action shall be deemed to have been approved by the administrative officer on the date of the expiry of the said period. (3) No penalty [being the penalty other than that referred to in sub-section (1)] shall be imposed on a teacher of the private primary school unless such teacher has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 15. Thus, the caption under Chapter 7 of the Rules suggests that the procedure for imposition of penalty on teachers of recognized private primary schools has been elucidated. The Rule 40B falls under the said Chapter and it stipulates about dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of teachers. The Sub Rule (a) of 40B of the Rules refers that “No teacher of a recognized private primary school shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank nor shall his service be otherwise terminated”. The Rule 40B falls under the said Chapter and it stipulates about dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of teachers. The Sub Rule (a) of 40B of the Rules refers that “No teacher of a recognized private primary school shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank nor shall his service be otherwise terminated”. The Sub Rule (b) of Rule 40B of the Rules mandates that the administrative officer shall communicate to the management of the appellant-School, in writing, his approval or disapproval of the action proposed against the teacher within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt by the administrative officer of such proposal. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 40B of the Rules stipulates that if the administrative officer fails to communicate either approval or disapproval within a period of 45 days the proposed action shall be deemed to have been approved by the administrative officer on the date of the expiry of the said period i.e. 45 days. 16. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Teacher has been terminated in view of the purported action taken by the appellant-School on the ground of closure. At this stage, we may refer to the provisions of Schedule F of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949, more particularly, Clause 5, which relates to the closure of appellant-School or reduction in the total number of class. The same is as under: “5. Closure of school or reduction in the total number of class: No management of recognised private primary school shall reduce the total number of classes in its school or close down the school without the prior permission in writing of the Authorised Officer. For this purpose, the management shall have to make an application to the Authorised Officer at least six months before the date from which it intends to reduce the number of classes or close down the school. On receipt of such application, the Authorised Officer may in such manner as may be deemed necessary, make such inquiry as it may appear to be necessary and shall decide whether the application may be granted or refused either in whole or in part.” 17. The provisions of Rule 5 of Schedule F of the Rules bars the management of a recognized private school from reduction of classes or closure of the school without the prior permission in writing of the authorized officer. The provisions of Rule 5 of Schedule F of the Rules bars the management of a recognized private school from reduction of classes or closure of the school without the prior permission in writing of the authorized officer. In the present case, the appellant-School has miserably failed to show that the authorized officer has ever granted any permission to the appellant-School to either close the classes or to close down the School. The appellant-School cannot invoke the provisions of section 40B of the Rules for terminating the service of a teacher in absence of any approval by the competent authority, as required under section clause 5 of schedule F of the Rules. The unilateral action of the appellant-School in closing the classes or school cannot validate the action of terminating the teacher in absence of any approval permitting such closure. Till the competent authority grants permission of the closure of classes or school, as required under the statute, the closure is not legal. 18. In the present, the evidence suggest that the appellant-School was functioning in the year 2008 and 11 teachers were also serving. Thus, the applications, which were filed by the school seeking closure was merely an eyewash and by taking shelter under these applications, the appellant-School terminated the service of the respondent-Teacher. It is the case of the appellant-School that despite having made various requests to the authorized officer or competent authority of the State Government, no order approving the closure of school was passed and hence, they may not be made to suffer. Such a lame excuse by the appellant-School deserves to be rejected outrightly since the the appellant-School had never approached any Court of law questioning the inaction of the respondent-State Authorities in not passing order on their application seeking closure of appellant-School. Even otherwise, looking to the undisputed fact that the appellant-School was functioning in the year 2008 and since the respondent-Teacher had not reached the age of superannuation, the appellant-School could have appointed her as a teacher however, nothing was done in this regard despite the order passed by the Tribunal. 19. The learned Single Judge in the writ petition has examined all these facts and has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant-School. 19. The learned Single Judge in the writ petition has examined all these facts and has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant-School. The learned Single Judge has also recorded the fact that in fact, the Review Application filed by the School seeking review of the order dated 17.07.2012 though was filed in the year 2013, was not disposed of till the year 2022. The Tribunal had also imposed a costs of Rs.5,000/- and dismissed the Review Application for non-prosecution, however, the said costs of Rs.5,000/- is also not paid by the appellant-School. 20. We are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant-School had abused the judicial process and has dragged the litigation unnecessary for all these years in order to deny the legitimate benefits to the respondent-Teacher, who had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2009. 21. It appears that before the Tribunal as well as before the learned Single Judge, it was contended by the appellant-School that since the respondent-Teacher was to retire on completing the age of 55 years and was terminated before reaching the age of 55 years, the same will not cause any prejudice. The learned Single Judge after considering the provisions of Schedule F of the Rules more particularly, Rule 34 has held that a teacher can retire at the age of 58 years however, review of the service of the teacher is to be undertaken at the age of 55 years and it has to be decided whether the teacher is entitled to be continued beyond the age of 55 years or the teacher has to be retired prematurely at the age of 55 years. 22. In the present case, the respondent-Teacher was terminated just 15 days before she reached the age of 55 years, but it was not on the ground that her service was unsatisfactory or she was dead wood. This also shows the malicious intent of the management since it appears that the school ended her service prematurely before she reached the age of superannuation in the year 2009. 23. The judgments on which reliance is placed by the appellants cannot come to their rescue, since the same do not deal with the provisions of law as discussed hereinabove, nor they will apply to the peculiar facts of the preset case. 24. 23. The judgments on which reliance is placed by the appellants cannot come to their rescue, since the same do not deal with the provisions of law as discussed hereinabove, nor they will apply to the peculiar facts of the preset case. 24. On the overall appreciation of the facts and the conduct of the appellant-School in ill-treating the respondent-Teacher and also disobeying the various orders passed by the Tribunal and failure to pay the dues even after the orders passed in the Execution Application, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition with the costs of Rs.50,000/-. 25. Thus, we dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal by issuing following directions: (A) All the dues including the arrears of pay, pension, retirement benefits, costs of Rs.50,000/- etc. shall be paid to the respondent - Teacher within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the present order, failing which such amount shall carry an interest @ 12% p.a. (B) It is directed that the appellant-School shall process the pension papers and forward it to the Respondent no. 3. The Respondent nos.3 and 4 shall see to it that the retirement dues are paid to the respondent - Teacher within the limitation of 8 weeks. (C) In case there is any inter se dispute between the appellant-School and the State authority for paying the dues, such amount shall be paid by the State Government subject to recovery/adjustment from the appellant-School. (D) It is clarified that in order to see that respondent-Teacher who is more than 75 years of age, is not dragged into any other litigation, the amount of arrears, as directed by the Tribunal in execution applications shall also be paid to her. (E) In case of any delay in compliance of the foregoing directions, the amount of 12% interest shall be recovered from the erring officers. 26. In view of dismissal of the main matter, the connected Civil Application will not survive.