The legal principle established in the judgment emphasizes the binding nature of the undertaking provided by the employee at the time of promotion, which can justify recovery without the necessity of a show cause notice.

1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Minutes No.9.4.4. Of the 9th meeting of the fourth respondent held on 26.07.2012 and the consequential Madurai Kamaraj University Syndicate Resolution in Item No.32 of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 21.08.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to forbear the respondent No.3 from making any recovery from the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner was initially appointed as Production Assistant in the department of Audio Visual Research Centre / Educational Multimedia Research Centre. The said department is treated as the separate entity with 100% financial support of UGC. Accordingly, the staff members employed under the department are governed by the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the University and the University Grants Commission. In other words, the terms and conditions stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding would be binding on the employees working under the said department of the University. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the salary fixed was reduced and recovery was imposed. Further, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the recovery was imposed without even issuing any show cause notice and providing opportunity to the writ petitioner and therefore the same is the violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the third respondent University in its order dated 01.07.2009, upgraded as a Producer Senior scale and Producer selection grade scale granted to the writ petitioner was incorrect and erroneous. The order passed by the respondent subsequently states that the writ petitioner was upgraded as Producer Senior scale and Producer selection grade. Thus, the statement made by the writ petitioner in his affidavit is incorrect.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further states that the writ petitioner was the holder of technical position and therefore he cannot be granted with the scale of pay applicable to the teaching faculty. Therefore, the scale of pay received by the writ petitioner on par with the teaching faculty was contrary to the terms and conditions of Memorandum of Understanding and the staff pattern. Thus, the UGC has negatived the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of the scale of pay as applicable to the teaching faculty.

5. The Minutes of the meeting of the selection committee constituted, considered the candidates for promotion as Producer to Producer (Senior Scale) and Assistant Engineer to Assistant Engineer (Senior Scale) of Educational Multimedia Research Centre (EMMRC) of Madurai Kamaraj University held on 04.02.2009 in the Syndicate Rules. The said committee recommended the writ petitioner S.Ravikumar to be promoted from Producer to Producer (Senior Scale) subject to the approval of the board of management, EMMRC. Further the promotion was granted subject to the following conditions.

“b. Date of Promotion is subject to the condition of availment of Extraordinary leave, if any, during the eligibility period.

c. He has to complete two Refresher Courses of four weeks duration

d. He has to furnish an undertaking that he will refund the amounts so received on account of Promotion to Senior Scale, incase the UGC does not approve this benefit.

e. He shall not work on any assignment other than the EMMRC of Madurai Kamaraj University.”

6. The condition -D categorically enumerates that the petitioner has to furnish an undertaking that he will refund the amounts so received on account of promotion to Senior Scale in case of UGC does not approve his benefits. Thus, it is unambiguous that the writ petitioner would be eligible to continue the senior scale only in the event of grant of approval by the University Grants Commission.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent states that based on the orders pas