JUDGMENT :

R.Vijayakumar, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15.04.2021 in W.P.No.8629 of 2021.)

1. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The fifth respondent in the writ appeal was working as an Associate Professor in the petitioner's college and she was suspended from the service on allegations of certain misconduct and she attained superannuation on 30.06.2016. Since a criminal complaint was pending as against the fifth respondent, the first respondent had only sanctioned provisional pension and gratuity vide order dated 17.08.2017.

2. On 10.11.2012, the fourth respondent herein had passed a on sequential order providing provisional pension and DCRG to the fifth respondent herein.

3. On 03.10.2018, the writ petitioner college had forwarded the consent letter of 15 Associate Professors including that of the fifth respondent herein for fixing the revised pay scales on the basis of 7th Pay Commission Report. On 04.10.2018, the petitioner college sought a further clarification from the fourth respondent whether the provisional pension of the fifth respondent could be re-fixed on the basis of the enhanced pay scale.

4. The fourth respondent herein passed an order dated 13.05.2020 accepting the proposal for the revised pay scale on the basis of 7th Pay Commission Report for fixing the revised pay scales notionally from 01.01.2016 onwards and the monetary benefits from 01.10.2017 onwards.

5. The petitioner college addressed another letter to the fourth respondent on 27.07.2020 seeking clarification whether revised provisional pension can be granted to the fifth respondent based upon the revised pay scale. The writ petitioner further stated that unless sanctioned order is passed, the revised provisional pension cannot be granted.

6. On 11.01.2021, the fourth respondent herein issued proceedings revising the provisional pension and the provisional DCRG in view of the implementation of 7th Pay Commission Report. This order was challenged before the learned Single Judge on the ground that the order passed by the fourth respondent is in violation of Rules 60, 66 and 69 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

7. The writ petitioner had contended that only the college is the Competent Authority to revise or re-fix the pay scales and the fourth respondent has no Authority to do so. The writ petitioner had further contended that the order of granting provisional enhanced DCRG is also in violation of the Pension Rules.

8. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties had passed an order pointing out that the revision of pay scale of the employees was done by the Pay Commission and the said revision has been implemented in respect of all the persons who are placed similarly to the fifth respondent.

9. The learned Single Judge has also found that the fifth respondent has been permitted to retire from the service and hence she will be entitled to refixation of pay and appropriate pension and the pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for the payment of the terminal benefits. The said order is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

10. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the counsel for the contesting respondents.

11. At the outset, we would like to point out that the salary, revised pay scale, pension and the gratuity benefits are being paid by the Government and the writ petitioner college management does not have any locus standi to question the same since the college is an aided institution.

12. The writ petitioner college had themselves forwarded the consent letter of the fifth respondent as well as other Associate Professors for fixing of revised pay scale on the basis of 7th Pay Commission Report vide their proceedings dated 03.10.2018. Only pursuant to the said proposal, the fourth respondent herein had refixed the salary on 13.05.2020 based on 7th Pay Commission Report.

13. On 03.11.2017, the four