Re-Fixation Of Salary & Consequential Pensionary Benefits Post-Retirement Retrospectively Is Unlawful: Madras HC
|The Madras High Court held that the re-fixation of salary and consequential pensionary benefits after the retirement retrospectively, is not lawful.
The Madurai Bench held thus in a writ petition preferred by a retired employee against the order of the Madurai Kamaraj University.
A Single Bench of Justice R.N. Manjula observed, “The above said judgment will also be applicable to the facts of the present case, because in the instant case also the second respondent University has passed the impugned order, based on the Audit Objection raised with regard to the wrong fixation of pay of the non-teaching staff. As held in the above Judgment, only the Syndicate has the power to appoint the University staffs and fix their emoluments. The re-fixation of salary and consequential pensionary benefits post retirement retrospectively, in the opinion of this Court, is not in accordance with law and hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.”
Advocate T.C.S. Thillainayagam represented the petitioner while Government Advocate T. Amjadkhan represented the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner was working as a Lab Assistant in the respondent University and retired from service in 1988. His pension was reduced on the basis that his scale of pay was wrongly fixed. The Local Fund Audit Department raised an objection that the pay fixation of the petitioner was wrongly made in higher scale of pay.
The University had reduced the pension amount in December 2023 and passed an order. Before passing the said order, it did not issue any prior notice to the petitioner and therefore, challenging the same, he approached the High Court. He sought quashing of order and consequently direct respondents to reimburse the recovered amount to him with interest.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “In the case on hand also, the petitioner was retired from service by superannuation and hence, the employer - employee relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent University had come to an end and hence, the second respondent University holds no Authority to re-fix the salary and the consequential benefits of the petitioner.”
The Court, therefore, directed the respondents to reimburse the recovered amount to the petitioner with interest within a period of twelve weeks.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order of the University.
Cause Title- R. Rajamani v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate T.C.S. Thillainayagam
Respondents: Government Advocate T. Amjadkhan, Advocates Ashaiq Ismail and T. Cibi Chakraborthy.