BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 09.01.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.09.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.(MD)Nos.4651 to 4653 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4486, 4488. 4490, 4491, 4487, 4489 of 2024 P.Thavaraj ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4651 of 2024 T.Moorthy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4652 of 2024 S.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4653 of 2024 Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai.

2.The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai. ... Respondents in all W.Ps COMMON PRAYER : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Ref.No:A1744/MKU/Rev.Pension/2024, Ref.No:A1825/MKU/Rev.Pension/2024 and Ref.No:A1793/MKU/Rev.Pension/2024 dated 12.02.2024, 09.02.2024 and

12.02.2024 respectively and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran For M/s.Ajmal Associates For 1^st Respondent : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.Sri Charan Rengarajan, Senior Counsel For Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy

COMMON ORDER

All the Writ Petitions have been filed to quash the impugned orders passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Ref.No:A1744/MKU/Rev.Pension/2024, Ref.No:A1793/MKU/Rev.Pension/2024 and Ref.No:A1825/MKU/Rev.Pension/2024, dated 12.02.2024, 12.02.2024 and

09.02.2024 respectively

2.The petitioners were initially appointed as Sweeper cum Watchman on 23.02.1985 at the second respondent University. Later, they were promoted as Attender and was subsequently, conferred with Selection Grade and Special Grade in the cadre of Attender. The petitioners on attaining their age of superannuation retired from their service as well. After their retirement, the 2^nd respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 12.02.2024 and 09.02.2024 respectively, had issued a show cause notice requiring them to give an explanation with regard to refixation and revision of pension within a period of 10 days from the date of the impugned order. Challenging the said order as arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable, these Writ Petitions came to be filed.

3.The arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners can be summarized as follows:-

(i)All the pay fixation and increments of the petitioners were effected from time to time only after getting due permission from the syndicate, vide various syndicate resolutions. However, the impugned order came to be passed by the 2^nd respondent University, on the basis of the objections raised by the local fund audit report with regard to pay fixation against the post of Attender and that wrong fixation has been made instead of admissible pay.

(ii)Though the petitioners were issued with show cause notices, the same has been passed with a predetermined notion and the impugned order itself explicitly shows that it has been passed after taking a decision and calling for explanation is only an empty formality.

(iii)Once the refixation is ordered automatically, the same would lead to recovery of amount and the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent improperly in an unjust manner, after a prolonged period of time from the date of retirement of the petitioners.

(iv)Any order affecting the service rights and monetary benefits of an employee, which is passed beyond the period of time and after retirement is absolutely improper. In fact, all the persons who retired before 2013, were not subjected to revision of pension and as such, the impugned order is bad in its inception on the sole ground of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(v)The right which has been already conferred according to the revised pay fixed by the second respondent to the petitioners cannot be taken away by virtue of the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed by referring