P ARUMUGAM Vs. REGISTRAR TAMIL UNIVERSITY THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the order, dated 15.12.2005, of the learned single Judge passed in W.P. (MD) No.1493 of 2004. The appellant in W.A.No.141 of 2005 was the writ petitioner. The appellant in W.A.No.242 of 2005 was the respondent in the said writ petition. Since one part of the order of the learned single Judge has been passed against the appellant in W.A.No.242 of 2005, the said writ appeal has been preferred by the respondent in the writ petition. While the appellant in W.A.No.141 of 2005 will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant, the appellant in W.A.No.242 of 2005 will be referred to as the respondent.

(2.) IT is stated that though the appellant was allowed to retire from the services, of the respondent, his pensionary benefits were not granted. By a communication dated 12.8.2002 the respondent information appellant that based on the audit objection an excess payment to the appellant to an extent of Rs.3,95,093/&#8209 was noted. By a subsequent communication, dated 27.8.2002, the provisional pension payable to the appellant was fixed at a sum of Rs.622/&#8209 with effect from September, 2002 for the services rendered by the appellant in the respondent University. The appellant made a representation on 27.8.2002. By the order impugned in the writ petition, dated 22.4.2004, the respondent directed the appellant to refund a sum of Rs.3,95,093/&#8209, simultaneously fixing his monthly pension of Rs. 622/&#8209. According to the respondent, the University was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,57,234/&#8209 towards terminal benefits while the excess amount paid to the appellant from 1.2.1984 to 31.12.2001 was in the order of Rs.3,95,093 and therefore a sum of Rs.2,37,859/&#8209 was repayable by the appellant.3.1. Mr. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the services of the appellant in the respondent University was governed by the Statutes of the Tamil University. Learned counsel referred to Chapter 26 of the Statues which deals with the service conditions of the establishment of the respondent University, both academic and non&#8209academic. Under the definition clause of the said Chapter, falling under paragraph 2(1)(viii), 'employee' has been deified to be an employee of the Tamil University. The said chapter is stated to have been framed under Section 45 (4) of the Tamil University Act (Act 9 of 1982). Paragraph 16 of the said chapter deals with Pension&#8209cum&#8209Gratuity payable to the employees of the respondent University. The benefits as mentioned in the said paragraph are:

(3.) AS far as the denial of payment of pension, here again the learned counsel contended that by virtue of paragraph 20 of Service Statute, in the absence of any specific provision like that of Rule 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the said rule can be imported into the services of an employee of the respondent University in which event there would be no scope for payment of two pensions payable to the appellant.