Retrospective Re-Fixing Of Salary And Pension Benefits After Retirement Is Against Law: Madras High Court

Justice RN Manjula that after retirement, the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the University had come to an end and the University held no authority to re-fix the salary and consequential benefits of the petitioner.

“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 observed.

The court also observed that as far as universities were concerned, only a Syndicate had the power to appoint the university and fix their emoluments. Thus, in the court's view, the retrospective re-fixation of salary and subsequent reduction of pension amount based on Local fund audit objection was against the law and liable to be set aside.

“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,” the court said.

The court made the orders on a plea by R Rajamani, who was working as a Lab Assistant at Madurai Kamaraj University. Rajamani had retired from service on November 11, 1988. He had challenged an order from the University Registrar reducing his scale of pay on the basis that it was wrongly fixed. The registrar stated that the Local Fund Audit Department had raised objections and observed that the pay fixation was wrongly made on a higher scale.

Rajamani informed the court that though the pension amount was reduced from December 2023, the impugned order was passed only in March 2024. He added that he was not issued with any prior notice before issuing the impugned order.

The court relied on an earlier order wherein it had observed that Government Order could not superseded by any statutory provisions that govern the service conditions of the employees. The court also relied on the Apex Court order in State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar, wherein the Apex Court had held that the right to receive a pension was a right in property and executive instructions could not have a statutory character and could not be called as law.

The court thus set aside the order of the Registrar and directed the University to reimburse the recovered amount with interest within a period of 12 weeks.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.C.S.Thillainayagam

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate, Mr.Ashaiq Ismail for Mr.T.Cibi Chakraborthy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 175

Case Title: R Rajamani v The State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: W.P.(MD)No.9989 of 2024