The main legal point established is that pay protection under clause 11(a)(i)(a) of the University Statute applies only if the employee holds a lien on a permanent post and is not applicable to direct recruitments.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Ceritorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Memo.No.Estt-II/T/2021 dated 25.11.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to allow the amount pay as fixed on the appointment as Assistant Professor within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.)

Common Order:

The writs on hand have been instituted questioning the validity of re-fixation and recovery made against the petitioners in proceedings dated 25.11.2021.

2. The petitioners are working as Assistant Professors in the Department of Geography School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and the Department of Zoology, Directorate of Distance Education, Madurai Kamaraj University.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially appointed as Technician on 14.02.1991 and 13.01.992 in the respondent University on regular basis on time scale of pay and the post of Technician was redesignated as Technical Officer. The petitioners were awarded with selection grade in the post of Technical Officer, on completion of 10 years of service.

4. The respondent University invited applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, School of Earth and Atmospheric Science and the Department of Zoology, Directorate of Distance Education, Madurai Kamaraj University. The petitioners submitted their application for selection to the post of Assistant Professor, pursuant to the recruitment notification issued. They were selected and appointed by the respondents in proceedings dated 15.10.2010 and 03.12.2013 as Assistant Professors.

5. The petitioners state that they made representations to the University to grant pay protection under clause 11(a)(i)(a) of the Madurai Kamaraj University Statute. As per the said provision, the initial substantive pay of a University servant who is appointed substantively to a post on a time scale shall be regulated. By relying on the said provision, the petitioners claim that they are entitled for pay protection.

6. It is contended that pay protection was approved by the Syndicate. Accordingly, pay fixation was done protecting the pay of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Professor, taking into consideration the pay which they have received from the post of Technical Officer.

7. The audit objection was raised on the ground that under the Fundamental Rules, fixation made in favour of the petitioners was erroneous and impermissible. Pursuant to the audit objection, the order of re-fixation and recovery was issued by the Authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed writ petitions in W.P(MD).Nos.9349 & 9352 of 2021 and in view of the fact that no opportunity was given to the petitioners, the matters were remanded for issuing show cause notice and to pass fresh order, considering the materials available on record. Thereafter, the order impugned is passed revising the fixation of imposing recovery.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that the explanation submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice was not considered in its real spirit. The petitioners mainly relied on clause 11(a)(i)(a) of the Madurai Kamaraj University Statute and in accordance with the Statute, pay protection was granted. Such protection need not be taken away as it is permissible. Thus, the consideration of explanation is lacking in the impugned order. The petitioners are entitled for pay protection under the said clause and therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the Madurai Kamaraj University Statute.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents objected the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioners by stating that the pay protection is available only in respect of persons, who appointed from t