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)No.5809 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.5479 and 5482 of 2024 P.Radha Krishnan ... Petitioner 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 PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Ref.No:A1786/MKU/Rev.Pension/2024 dated 29.02.2024 and quash the same as illegal.

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

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Ref.No:A1786/MKU/Rev.Pension/2024, dated 29.02.2024.

2.The petitioner was initially appointed as Lab Assistant on

02.12.1989 at the second respondent University. Later, he was conferred selection grade and special grade in the cadre of Lab Assistant. The petitioner on attaining his age of superannuation retired from his service as well. After his retirement, the 2^nd respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 29.02.2024, had issued a show cause notice requiring him 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, this Writ Petition came to be filed.

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

(i)All the pay fixation and increments of the petitioner 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 Lab Assistant and that wrong fixation has been made instead of admissible pay.

(ii)Though the petitioner was issued with show cause notice, 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 petitioner.

(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 petitioner cannot be taken away by virtue of the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed by referring some resolution and the same has not been served upon the petitioner. The aforesaid resolution has been passed by in consonance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.174, Higher Education Department, dated 25.09.2013, which has already been quashed by the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.6635 of 2019 dated 16.06.2023. On the basis of such arguments, the learned counsel pressed for allowing the Writ Petition. 4.Per contra, the arguments put forth by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Sri Charan Rengarajan, on be