IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that pay protection granted by the Executive Council must be honored, and recovery proceedings against employees should be deferred pending clarification from relevant authorities.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

The petitioners seek extension of benefit of pay protection approved and ordered by the Executive Council of the Central University of Kerala. The petitioners state that they have been working as regular employees of Banaras Hindu University. When the 1^st respondent-Central University of Kerala notified vacancies of Section Officer and Private Secretary, the petitioners appeared in the written examination and skill test and were issued with appointment orders in November and December 2011 respectively as per Exts.P2 and P2(a).

2. The petitioners state that they have joined the 1^st respondent-University after obtaining separate relieving letter from Banaras Hindu University, as is evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioners joined the 1^st respondent-University retaining their lien to the post in the Banaras Hindu University. The initial pay of the petitioners in the 1^st respondent-University was fixed reckoning a last pay certification issued by the Banaras Hindu University. Exts.P5 and P5(a) would show that the petitioners were granted pay protection.

3. The petitioners state that the petitioners were following under the Statutory Pension Scheme and therefore requested for protection of pay during the selection process and the University accepted the same. The petitioners would not have accepted employment with the 1^st respondent-University had they refused the protection of pay before expiry of the lien. The probation of the petitioners was not declared for over two years. For the said reason, the lien of the petitioners in the Banaras Hindu University were also extended.

4. The petitioners state that the petitioners enjoyed the benefit of pay protection granted by the 1^st respondent-University during the entire service period. The probation of the petitioners was declared by the 2^nd respondent on 19.02.2015 only. When the probation was declared, the petitioners submitted request for technical resignation to their former employer Banaras Hindu University and the same was accepted as can be seen from Exts.P8 and P8(a) respectively.

5. Though the previous employer Banaras Hindu University granted pro-rata terminal benefits and other benefits including leave encashment, 1^st respondent was not required to reckon previous service for the purpose of service benefits and to carry GPF and other Pension Scheme which was enjoyed by the petitioners at Banaras Hindu University. The petitioners were forced to accept 10% deduction from the salary towards contribution of NPS.

6. The petitioners submitted Exts.P11 and P11(a) representation to the 2^nd respondent seeking to implement pay protection after the technical resignation. The Executive Council of the University considered Exts.P11 and P11(a) and acceded the request. However, the Officer of the 1^st respondent-University was reluctant to implement the decision of the Executive Committee.

7. The petitioners would submit that the 1^st respondent had already extended the benefit of pay protection to not less than seven employees in the establishment. In pursuant to Ext.P1 decision of the Executive Committee, the respondents had issued an order dated 25.09.2023 directing the petitioners to submit their acceptance of the orders issued by the Executive Council. The petitioners joined the 1^st respondent- University and submitted request for technical resignation only due to the fact that the earlier pay was protected and reckoned for disbursal of salary by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, there is no justification to deny Statutory Pension Scheme to the petitioners, urged the petitioners.

8. For the afore reasons, the petitioners sought to command the 1^st respondent to extend the benefit ordered in Ext.P1 decision and Exts.P12 and P13 orders to the petitioners by granting protection of pay and reimburse the amount unlawfully recovered from them. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not insisting for relief no.2 in the writ petition relating to the Statutor