JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard Mr. Dastane, learned counsel for the Petitioner on the backdrop of our order dated 26 th November 2025 wherein considering the peculiar facts of the case, we had made the following observations and the consequent orders:- 2. From the submissions advanced at the Bar, prima facie, it appears to us that the impugned Government Resolution dated 20 February 2024 has been issued without the very basis of the earlier Government Resolution dated 4 April 2015 having neither vanished nor the same, in any manner being extinguished. The reasons for the issuance of the Government Resolution dated 4 April 2015, by which the age of retirement of the teaching faculty in the Agricultural Universities was enhanced from 60 to 62 years, are clearly set out in the preamble of the said Government Resolution. 3. The contention of Mr.Dastane, and Mr. Talhar, learned counsel for the Petitioner is on the decision making process. We are concerned with only the limited four Agricultural Universities in the State of Maharashtra namely Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth (Rahuri), Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth (Akola), Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth (Parbhani) and Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth (Dapoli). Considering that our country is predominantly an agrarian economy, and large part of the State of Maharashtra depends on agriculture and cultivation agricultural universities play a vital role in the growth and development. The petitioners who are members of the teaching faculties are integral and/or the foundational pillars to agricultural education, being imparted by these Universities, in the State of Maharashtra. We cannot compare agricultural universities with the large number of non-agricultural universities and/or the deemed universities. In fact there cannot be any comparison qua the essentials as applicable to the non-agricultural universities on one hand and the meagre four agricultural universities in the State of Maharashtra. Thus, the perspective in the application of any rules and regulations insofar as the agricultural universities are concerned, needs to be different. A special vision and approach is necessary when it come to the service conditions of the teaching faculties of those who serve the agricultural universities. Further requires no elaboration that the teaching conditions cannot be varied to the prejudice of the employees. There ought not to be any impediment if the service conditions are improved or they are altered to confer benefits. Further requires no elaboration that the teaching conditions cannot be varied to the prejudice of the employees. There ought not to be any impediment if the service conditions are improved or they are altered to confer benefits. But the moment any benefit which is granted is being taken away, it has to be only on a rationale and robust, non-arbitrary, lawful and acceptable considerations when it comes to depriving the employees of a conferred benefit. In such context, the principles of constitutional morality needs to be adhered by the State Government, which clearly apply in such situations. 4. On the aforesaid perspective, in the present proceedings, we consider the plight of the Petitioners/ teaching staff who were to retire at the age of 62 under Government Resolution dated 4 th April 2015, who are now being suddenly asked to go home at the age of 60 under the Government Resolution. Thus, on a after a legitimate expectation qua the age of retirement being enhanced to 62 years, the age of retirement is rolled back to 60 years. In our prima facie view, it could be so taken away provided the basis on which the enhancement had taken place by virtue of Government Resolution dated 4 April 2015 itself stood extinguished. However, it is not so. This is clear from the fact that the impugned Government Resolution (dated 20 February 2024) is issued on a completely distinct /alien premise, from what was declared to be the basis in the Government Resolution dated 4 th April 2015, in enhancing the age of retirement of the teaching faculty from 60 to 62 years. 5. Further, if what has been set out in the preamble of the impugned Government Resolution (dated 20 February 2024) is to be considered, it is also a position that since the year 2016 no steps have been taken to even achieve what has been set out in paragraph two of the preamble thereof. The process to undertake recruitment in the Agricultural Universities never commenced, eventually the Petitioners who are limited in number, have continued to work with the respective Universities, more particularly in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court. 6. The process to undertake recruitment in the Agricultural Universities never commenced, eventually the Petitioners who are limited in number, have continued to work with the respective Universities, more particularly in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court. 6. In this regard we accept the Petitioners anxiety and contention that although the Petitioners have furnished an undertaking, that they would not claim the salary after the age of 60 as recorded in the interim order dated 28 th March 2024, passed by co-ordinate bench this Court, considering that the acceptable norms in appropriate cases can be of ‘no work, no pay’, however situation in the present facts cannot be of “work, however, no pay” that too when the petitioners are members of the teaching faculty, in the agriculture universities. It is not also an acceptable proposition that those Petitioners’ who are discharging their duties, are denied salary prejudicially affecting their fundamental rights to livelihood guaranteed to them as recognized under Article 21. They certainly need to be paid salary in the present circumstances for the work/duties they are discharging. This more particularly, as the Petitioners plight has remained in a ‘suspended animation’ as neither they are being paid salary nor they are receiving pension. We are thus, persuaded to vacate and modify the interim orders to this extent, so that the undertaking of the Petitioners as furnished by them, under the interim orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, does not defeat their fundamental rights of livelihood. Even the State Government would not be in a legal position to take a stand that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Universities would take work from the petitioners, however, the Universities would not pay salaries to the teaching staff, merely because the State Government has now issued a new policy of roll-back of the age of retirement and the same is under a judicial scrutiny and adjudication before this Court. 7. 7. Now coming to the principal grievance of the Petitioners, on the impugned Government Resolution by which the age of retirement as foisted from 62 to 60, in the peculiar facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary (Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and others) to take up the issue with the Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture and, so as to consider whether, as a one-time measure, employees of the Agricultural Universities who were granted the entitlement under the Government Resolution dated 4 April 2015, should be continued in service upto the age of 62 years, and their age of retirement in the circumstances not rolled back, as purportedly sought to be done under the impugned Government Resolution dated 20th February 2024 This also for the reason that some of the employees who have retired between 2015 to 2024 i.e. till the passing of the impugned Resolution dated 20 th February 2024, have taken the benefit of the enhanced age of retirement granted under Government Resolution dated 4 th April 2025. Hence it cannot be that two categories of employees are created, the first category of those who have superannuated between 2015 and February 2024, who have taken the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 4 th April 2015 and were permitted to retire at the age of 62, and on the other hand, the second category of those who did not attain the age of 62 before the issuance of the impugned Government Resolution or who would attain the age of 62 years, after the issuance of the impugned Government Resolution dated 20 th February 2024. Thus, the second category of persons (Petitioners) would obviously suffer an apparent discrimination. These are all complications which are created by the impugned Government Resolution. 8. In this view of the matter it is eminently necessary that the Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture, needs to take appropriate view of the matter, considering the special circumstances of these employees of the Agricultural Universities. If such decision is not taken, in our prima facie opinion, serious prejudice would be caused to such employees like the Petitioners. Moreover, the doctrine of legitimate expectation as conferred by Government Resolution dated 4 th April 2015 which has been recognized in several decisions of the Supreme Court as an enforceable legal right, would stand breached, is prima facie a valid argument, as advanced on behalf of the Petitioners. Moreover, the doctrine of legitimate expectation as conferred by Government Resolution dated 4 th April 2015 which has been recognized in several decisions of the Supreme Court as an enforceable legal right, would stand breached, is prima facie a valid argument, as advanced on behalf of the Petitioners. 9. Hence, let an appropriate decision in that regard be taken on or before the adjourned date of hearing. The same be placed on record by the affidavit to be filed by Principal Secretary (Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and others). The affidavit shall specifically annex the decision taken by Hon’ble Minister for Agriculture, who shall consider the special and peculiar facts and circumstances. 10. In the light of the above discussion and considering the grave hardship caused to the Petitioners, we are of the clear opinion that those Petitioners who are in fact discharging their duties with the concerned Agriculture Universities’ cannot be deprived of their salaries for the work performed by them. Thus, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioners and the State Government, we direct that the concerned Universities shall pay/disburse the salaries of the Petitioners for the period they have worked/discharged their duties, to this extent the earlier interim orders passed on these Petitions would be required to be vacated and the voluntary gesture of the Petitioners to submit an undertaking, ought not to come in the way of they being paid salaries for the duties discharged by them for the respective period. The Universities in this regard would be entitled to seek reimbursement of such amounts from the State Government. Order accordingly. 11. We are passing the aforesaid order not only in considering the right to livelihood guaranteed to the Petitioners of a respectable survival, as recognised under Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution, but also on the principle that in the peculiar facts of the case once they have discharged their duties, they are entitled to be paid. Let the payments be released in favour of the Petitioners within a period of two weeks from today. 12. Stand over to 17 th December 2025 at 3.00p.m. 2. Insofar as the compliance of aforesaid order qua paragraph No. 9 and 10 are concerned i.e. the Principal Secretary (Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Others) to place on record, an affidavit with regard to the decision the State Government would take, such affidavit has been filed. 12. Stand over to 17 th December 2025 at 3.00p.m. 2. Insofar as the compliance of aforesaid order qua paragraph No. 9 and 10 are concerned i.e. the Principal Secretary (Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Others) to place on record, an affidavit with regard to the decision the State Government would take, such affidavit has been filed. There is no explanation on record for the failure to file the affidavit as required. Be that as it may, what has transpired is that the learned Government Pleader has tendered a letter dated 16th December 2025 issued by the Desk Officer/Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, addressed to her stating that as this Court, in its aforesaid order has observed that the Hon’ble Minister of the concerned department would be required to take an appropriate position and consider the issues as noted in the said order, in such context, it is being informed to the learned Government Pleader that the impugned decision to roll back the age of retirement in fact has been taken by the Cabinet and therefore it would not be possible for the Hon’ble Minister to take a decision. 3. At this stage we are informed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in many agricultural universities in the country, the age of retirement has been now enhanced to 65 years. This would be an additional factor, which would be required to be seriously taken in to consideration by the Cabinet. 4. In this view of the matter, we direct that the issues as highlighted in our aforesaid order need to be placed before the Cabinet, for a decision to be taken in the light of the observations made in our order dated 26th November 2025, at the ensuing meeting of the Cabinet for an appropriate decision to be taken by the Cabinet/ State Government, more particularly in the context of the significantly peculiar facts, which now falls for consideration of the Cabinet. An appropriate affidavit in compliance of the orders of this Court, shall thereafter be placed on record, by the Principal Secretary, setting out the decision taken by the Cabinet. We are hopeful that appropriate consideration shall be meted out to the issues, which are peculiar to the “agricultural universities” which are only “four” in number, in the State of Maharashtra. 5. We are hopeful that appropriate consideration shall be meted out to the issues, which are peculiar to the “agricultural universities” which are only “four” in number, in the State of Maharashtra. 5. Insofar as Vasantrao Naik Agricultural University, Parbhani is concerned, learned counsel for the University has made a statement that one of the petitioners, namely Petitioner No. 6, has in fact discharged his duties, and that the orders in respect of Petitioner No. 6 shall be complied by the said university. Let the same be complied at the earliest. The Affidavits on behalf of the other Universities can be placed on record on the issues in regard to the Petitioners who are actually discharging their duties. Let the copies of the same be served on the Advocate for the Petitioner in advance. 6. Insofar as Petitioner No. 19 in Writ Petition No. 19544 of 2024 is concerned, we are informed by Mr. Dastane that the said petitioner is due to retire on attaining the age of 60 years on 31st December 2025. We permit the said Petitioner to be continued in service, as the other Petitioners have continued pursuant to interim orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench, till an alternate appointment is made so as to fill up the post held by Petitioner No.19 or till the said Petitioner reaches the age of 62 whichever is earlier. In such situation the benefit of our Order dated 26 th November 2025, shall also be available to the said Petitioner. 7. Accordingly we adjourn the present proceedings to 19 th January 2026 at 3.00p.m.