An administrative authority cannot unilaterally review its decisions regarding pension benefits without justified grounds or notice, particularly after prior approvals have been given.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13 ^th day of August, 2024 The above writ petition is preferred assailing Ext.P6 order which was issued after more than 3 years of his retirement whereby directed to revise his pensionary benefits and also ordered to recover the excess amount already paid to him.

2. The petitioner entered into the service of the 1^st respondent University on 03.10.1988 and he served the University for 23 years and retired from service Prior to the joining of University, the petitioner had served the Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL), which is a Central Government Public Sector undertaking, where he had a service of 8 years, 10 months and 25 days. On the extant rules then, the petitioner made an application seeking to reckon his past service. On the basis of said application, on considering the extant rules, the University directed the petitioner to remit his contribution as per Ext.P1 memo. Accordingly, he remitted the said amount.

3. Thereafter, by Ext.P2, University has issued an order wherein sanction has been accorded by the Vice Chancellor on 05.12.2000 from reckoning the past service of the petitioner as Filter Structural Grade I in Cochin Shipyard Ltd (CSL) for the period with effect from 07.11.1979 to 01.10.1988 afternoon prior to his joining at University service on 03.10.1988 for pensionary benefits. The said order has been given effect in his pensionary book. Later, an audit objection was taken with reference to the reckoning of earlier service in CSL. The said audit objection was considered by the Syndicate of the University and resolved to overrule the audit objection and taken a conscious decision to release the terminal benefits due to the petitioner, which is evident in Ext.P3 dated 11.08.2011.

4. The said exercise of power was done on invoking the powers vested on the Syndicate under the Calicut University First Statutes, 1997 (for short 'Statutes 1977') especially Rule 3 Clause viii of Chapter VI. In Ext.P4 order it is stated by the petitioner that the service rendered by the State Government employees, who left their formal service on their own volition under the Central Government or Central Public Sector Undertaking can be reckoned for their pensionary benefits along with the service in the State Government Department, if the former employer remits the share of proportionate pensionary liability on a service share basis. In this effect, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 2 of Chapter IV of the Statutes 1977, the University has adopted the rules pertains to the service of the Government employees which is applicable to the University employees, that is, Kerala Service Rules , Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules and Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960 etc, especially Rule 11 Part III KSR, which states:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of rule 10, the Government may, 1. declare that any specified kind of service rendered shall qualify for pension; and

2. in individual cases, and subject to such conditions as they may think fit to impose in each case, allow service rendered by an employee to count for pension”.

5. Thereafter, the audit objection has been overruled by the Syndicate on the basis of the report submitted by the Standing Committee, as evident in paragraph 3 of Ext.P5. Accordingly, the petitioner's pensionary benefits has been fixed. Later, by Ext.P6 order, it is directed to revise the pensionary benefits on considering the audit objection, which is referred to in the order dated 01.07.2013 as item No. 2. While effecting the said revision of the pension, it is not specifically mentioned that what are the circumstan