Judgment :- F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 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. 2.1. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the appellant was originally employed in the Education Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. He joined the service in the Education Department on 19.6.1961. He was last employed as a Special Temporary Assistant in the Education Department. In the year 1983, when the respondent called for applications for the post of Superintendent, the appellant, after getting the permission of the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, applied for the said post and also attended the interview. The respondent offered an appointment to the appellant as .Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs.525925, as a direct recruit, by a communication dated 30.6.1983 and also came forward to give pay protection by taking into account his last drawn pay in the State Government. The pay of the appellant was also fixed at Rs.575/per month. By a communication dated 5.10.1983, the appellant expressed his willingness to join the respondent from 1.2.1984 after submitting his voluntary retirement application in the State Government by giving three months notice. By a communication dated 18.10.1983, the respondent granted the appellant time till 1.2.1984 to join the service. On 31.1.1984, the appellant was permitted to go under voluntary retirement by the State Government and he was also granted a pension of Rs. 229/- from the month of February, 1984. On 1.2.1984, the appellant joined the respondent, University in the post of Superintendent. On 31.1.1986, the satisfactory completion of probation of the appellant was also declared. On 10.1.1990, the appellant was promoted as Assistant Registrar. On 31.12.2001, the appellant retired from the services of the respondent University on attaining the age of superannuation, after completing 17 years of service. On 1.2.1984, the appellant joined the respondent, University in the post of Superintendent. On 31.1.1986, the satisfactory completion of probation of the appellant was also declared. On 10.1.1990, the appellant was promoted as Assistant Registrar. On 31.12.2001, the appellant retired from the services of the respondent University on attaining the age of superannuation, after completing 17 years of service. The last drawn pay of the appellant was Rs. 11,500/-. 2.2. 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/- 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/- 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/-, simultaneously fixing his monthly pension of Rs. 622/-. According to the respondent, the University was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,57,234/- 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/- 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-academic. 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-cum-Gratuity payable to the employees of the respondent University. The benefits as mentioned in the said paragraph are: (i) Pension or Service Gratuity, (ii) Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, and (iii) Family Pension. 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-cum-Gratuity payable to the employees of the respondent University. The benefits as mentioned in the said paragraph are: (i) Pension or Service Gratuity, (ii) Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, and (iii) Family Pension. The conditions for the grant of pensionary benefits are that the service should be under the University and for that service payment should be made by the University. Under sub-paragraph (4) of Paragraph 16, qualifying service is to be computed taking into account the total service of the employee from the date of his entry into service up to his date of retirement/death in service, which would be termed as Gross Qualifying services. Under sub-paragraph (6), the qualifying service for pension has been fixed as 10 full years. The said paragraph also provides the rate of service gratuity payable in lumpsum in lieu of pension if opted for. Subparagraph (8) of Paragraph 16 provides the benefit of payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity and sub-para (9) of paragraph 16 provides the prescription for payment of family pension. Sub-para (13) provides the prescription for commutation of pension. 3.2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 22.4.2004, having not been made in accordance with the provisions of the statute prevailing in the respondent University, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel would contend that the period of service of the appellant rendered by him in the State Government was distinct and different from the service rendered by him in the respondent University and therefore the payment of pension by the State Government for the services rendered with it ought not to have been taken into account for the purpose of calculation of pension payable to the appellant for the services rendered in the respondent University. Learned counsel then contended that since the respondent University was aware of the appellant's erstwhile service with the State Government and also the receipt of pension from the State Government, having fixed the pay of the appellant in the pay scale of Rs.525-925, it was not justified in seeking for recovery at the time of his superannuation. Learned counsel then contended that since the respondent University was aware of the appellant's erstwhile service with the State Government and also the receipt of pension from the State Government, having fixed the pay of the appellant in the pay scale of Rs.525-925, it was not justified in seeking for recovery at the time of his superannuation. Learned, counsel therefore contended that the learned single Judge was not justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled for pension from the respondent University by applying Rule 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions: (i) Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18; (ii) Nand Kishore Sharma and Others v. State of Bihar and Others; 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 722; and (iii) Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. K.O. Varghese and Others 2003 (12) SCC 293 . 4. As against the above submissions, Mr. Giridharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University, relied upon paragraph 20 of Chapter 26 of the Service Statute of the respondent University and contended that when the said paragraph stipulates that all matters not specifically covered in the Service Statute would be governed by the rules governing the services of Tamil Nadu Government, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules would apply to the employees of the respondent University wherever there is no specific rule available in its Service Statute. Learned counsel placed reliance upon Rules 44 and 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, while attempting to sustain the impugned order of the respondent, dated 22.4.2004. 5. As far as Rule 44 is concerned, that relates to regulation of pay in case of re-employed Government pensioner. The said rule reads as under: "44. Regulation of pay in case of re-employed Government pensione: The authority competent to fix the pay and allowances of the post in which a pensioner is re-employed shall determine whether the pension shall be held wholly or partly in abeyance. If pension is drawn wholly or in part, such authority shall take the amount of such pension into account in fixing the pay to be allowed to him ……. NOTE.- ……………. If pension is drawn wholly or in part, such authority shall take the amount of such pension into account in fixing the pay to be allowed to him ……. NOTE.- ……………. 4(i) The general principle governing the fixation of pay of a re-employed pensioner in the same or similar post is to allow him to draw his pension in full and in addition, such pay as will bring his total emoluments up to the rate of pay drawn by him on the date of his retirement.” " Rule 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules reads as under: "(2) Except as provided in Rule 16, a Government servant who, having retired on a superannuation pension or retiring pension, is subsequently re-employed shall not be entitled to a separate pension or gratuity for the period of his re-employment. 6. According to the learned counsel for the respondent University, having regard to paragraph 20 and since there is no provision in the Service Statute of the respondent University as regards the fixation of pay for a person re-employed when such person is a pensioner, Rule 44 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules automatically applies. According to the learned counsel, when the said Rule 44 is applicable, since the appellant failed to inform the respondent University about the receipt of pension for his erstwhile service in the State Government, a wrong fixation of pay came to be made at the time of his re-employment in the respondent University in 1984 which consequently resulted in payment of pay and emoluments which were higher than what the appellant was really entitled to and that such wrong payment continued to be made till the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2001 and therefore, the respondent was justified in passing the order impugned in the writ petition. 7. 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. 8. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find that the recovery which is sought to be made as against the appellant consisted of two categories. One item of recovery is based on the wrong fixation of pay made at the time of the appellant's entry into the services of the respondent University on and from 1.2.1984. The other one related to the grant of selection grade scale of pay to the appellant after he was promoted as Assistant Registrar in the respondent University. That apart, the real question which requires to be decided in these writ appeals relates to the appellant's entitlement for pension for the services rendered by him in the respondent University between 1.2.1984 and 31.12.2001. 9. Dealing with the second issue, namely, entitlement of pension payable to the appellant, in the first instance, if sub-paras (6) and (7) of paragraph 16 of the Service Statute are applied, it should be held that the appellant had completed minimum qualifying service of 10 years and therefore depending upon the option that could be exercised by the appellant he could either seek for payment of service gratuity in lieu of pension as provided under sub para (6) or for payment of pension as provided in sub-para (7) of paragraph 16. It will have to be held so, since, the appellant satisfies the main condition for the grant of pensionary benefits, as provided under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 16 which only states that the service should be under the respondent University and the said service should have been paid for by the University. Under sub-paragraph 2(ii) of paragraph 16, an employee who happened to render service in some other University/institution could have opted for tagging on of the service rendered in any other University/institution, provided the pension fund accumulation for the other service is either transferred to the service of the respondent University or the employee had volunteered to pay the said amount into the pension find of the respondent University in which event such tagging of all the past service in the different University/institution could have been validly made and pension payable to an employee calculated on that basis. 10. 1. In the case on hand, the appellant did not apply to the respondent for any such option. 10. 1. In the case on hand, the appellant did not apply to the respondent for any such option. In the above said background, when we consider the question relating to applicability of Rule 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules to the case of the appellant, on a reading of Rules 7(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, we are of the considered opinion that the disqualification for earning two pensions as stipulated in the said rule will have no application to the case of the appellant. The contention of the respondent is that Rule 7(2) will have to be imported into the Service Statute of the respondent University inasmuch as the availability of such a rule is not there in the said Service Statute. In effect, it is a fictional application of Rule 7(2) to the employees of the respondent University in the absence of such a specific rule in the Service Statute of the respondent University. 10.2. Even by holding that Rule 7 can be bodily lifted and imported into the Service Statute of the respondent University, then the question would be whether after applying the said rule it will have to be seen whether the disqualification of earning two pensions in the same service or post could be said to be there in the case of the appellant. For the sake of convenience, Rule 7(1) can be extracted here for better appreciation which reads as under: “7(1). A Government servant shall not earn two pensions in the same service or post at the same time or by the same continuous service. While applying the above said rule, it will have to be remembered that instead of reading the said rule applicable to a Government servant, it will have to be read in such a manner that it is applicable to an employee of the respondent University. In other words, the rule will have to be otherwise read as under: "An employee of the respondent University shall not earn two pensions in the same service or post at the same time or by the same continuous service. In other words, the rule will have to be otherwise read as under: "An employee of the respondent University shall not earn two pensions in the same service or post at the same time or by the same continuous service. " When the said rule is read in that manner, it will have to be found out whether by sanctioning pension for the service rendered in the respondent University, the appellant could be said to suffer the disqualification of earning two pensions in the same service or post at the same time or in the same continuous service. 10.3. As far as the respondent University was concerned, the appellant was not earning any pension for any service rendered in the respondent University in any post contemporaneously or by virtue of any continuous service. The service rendered by the appellant in the respondent University was only between 1.2.1984 and 31.12.2001. There was no other service rendered by the appellant in the respondent University other on the above said period. If the said fact relating to the rendering of service by the appellant in the respondent University was not in dispute, then there is no question of the appellant earning two pensions in the service of the respondent University. The pension earned by the appellant for the service rendered by him for the State Government was quite distinct and different from the service rendered by him for the respondent University. If the said distinction in the rendering of service by the appellant in the respondent University and in the State Government can be distinguished, there is no reason why the applicability of Rule 7 can be ignored in order to hold that the appellant does not suffer the disqualification of earning two pensions simultaneously for the same service. In our considered opinion, sub-rule (2) will have no application inasmuchas the said situation would arise only if the retirement of the appellant, after earning the retiring pension had taken place in the service of the respondent University at an earlier occasion and after such retirement on superannuation, earning pension or retiring pension there was any reemployment in the service of the respondent University once over again, providing scope for earning another pension for such employment or continuous service. 10.4. That is not the case here. 10.4. That is not the case here. In the case on hand, the retirement of the appellant and the earning of retiring pension by virtue of his voluntary retirement was entirely in a different service altogether which was clearly distinguishable from the service rendered in the respondent University. If the said distinction could be clearly identified, the non application of Rule 7(2) could be safely arrived at inasmuch as Rule 7(2) is only the continuation of Rule 7(1) and the only other aspect referred therein is the exception provided under Rule 16. Once we are clear of the said position, we can safely hold that Rule 7(2) will also have no application. Once non-application of Rule 7 on the whole could be stated without any scope for contradiction, we can safely hold that irrespective of paragraph 20, deemed application of Rule 7 will not have any impact on application of paragraph 16 of Service Statute of the respondent University in the case of the appellant. We are of the clear opinion that the earning of pension by virtue of the voluntary retirement of the appellant in the erstwhile service put in by him in the State Government is clearly distinguishable from the service put in by him in the respondent University on and after 1.2.1984. 10.5. Therefore, it will have to be held that the appellant is entitled for pension to be calculated and paid based on the provisions available under the Service Statute as provided under paragraph 16 of the said statute for the period of service rendered by the appellant in the respondent University independent of whatever pension earned by the appellant in the erstwhile service of the State. In other words, there is no scope for consideration of the earning of pension of the appellant for the erstwhile service rendered by him in the service of the State with that of his entitlement for pension for the service rendered by him in the respondent University on and after 1.2.1984 upto 31.12.2001. We therefore hold that the appellant is entitled for pension de hors the receipt of pension by the appellant for the service rendered by him in the erstwhile service of the State. However, pension payable by the respondent can only be for the period of service rendered by the appellant between 1.2.1984 and 31.12.2001. 11.1. We therefore hold that the appellant is entitled for pension de hors the receipt of pension by the appellant for the service rendered by him in the erstwhile service of the State. However, pension payable by the respondent can only be for the period of service rendered by the appellant between 1.2.1984 and 31.12.2001. 11.1. As far as the issue relating to recovery which is sought to be made by the respondent University under the order impugned in the writ petition, it consists of two parts. One item of recovery is based on wrong fixation of pay made at the time of the appellant's entry into the services of the respondent University on and from 1.2.1984. According to the respondent University, by virtue of paragraph 20 of the Service Statutes, invocation of Rule 44 of the Tamil Nadu Pension rules was necessitated, that Rule 44(4)(i) stipulates the manner in which the pay of a re-employed pensioner is to be fixed, that since the appellant who was getting pension for his previous employment in the State Government and since the receipt of such pension was not duly intimated to the respondent, his pay fixation at the time of his employment with the respondent University on and from 1.2.1984 was not made in accordance with Rule 44(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It was therefore contended that when such a wrong fixation was objected to in the Audit Report, the respondent had to necessarily rectify the wrong pay fixation and whatever excess pay fixation and whatever excess payment paid to the appellant had to be necessarily recovered. 11.2. It was therefore contended that when such a wrong fixation was objected to in the Audit Report, the respondent had to necessarily rectify the wrong pay fixation and whatever excess pay fixation and whatever excess payment paid to the appellant had to be necessarily recovered. 11.2. According to the appellant, there was no suppression of the appellant’s erstwhile employment and the receipt of pension by him for such employment at the time of his joining in the respondent University and in any event the so-called alleged discrepancy was admittedly noted and brought to the notice of the respondent at the earliest point of time, namely in the Audit Report of 198485, but yet the respondent permitted the appellant to avail the benefit of fixation of pay made at the time of his entry into service till the date of his retirement, namely 31.12.2001 and therefore at this distant point of time it is highly inequitable on the part of the respondent to resort to recovery of a huge sum of more than Rs.3 lakhs from the terminal benefits payable to the appellant. In support of the above submission, reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i) Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others (supra); (ii) Nand Kishore Sharma and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (supra); and (iii) Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. K.O. Varghese and Others (supra). 11.3. As far as the said issue is concerned, we find that in the order appointment it is specifically mentioned as under: "TAMIL" As noted in the earlier paragraphs, the appellant was originally employed as a Special Temporary Assistant in the Education Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The appellant also applied to the post of Superintendent in the respondent University after getting due permission from the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram. A copy of the offer of appointment of the respondent, dated 13.6.1983, with the above referred to clause mentioned therein, was also marked among other authorities to the Finance Department, as well as to the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram. Again in the communication, dated 21.7.1983, the respondent reiterated that the salary of the appellant in the scale of Rs.525-25-675-30-855-35-925 with the pay protection was being made as a direct appointment. The said communication also specifically stated that the appellant was not being appointed on 'transfer of service' basis. 11.4. Again in the communication, dated 21.7.1983, the respondent reiterated that the salary of the appellant in the scale of Rs.525-25-675-30-855-35-925 with the pay protection was being made as a direct appointment. The said communication also specifically stated that the appellant was not being appointed on 'transfer of service' basis. 11.4. The fact that the alleged wrong fixation was made and that the same was noted in the course of annual audit of the year 1984-85 is tacitly admitted in the respondent's own communication dated 22.4.2004. In the said communication, in paragraph 3, the respond has stated as under: The said impediment in granting pension to the appellant was informed to the appellant for the first time in the respondent's communication dated 12.8.2002. In fact, the copy of the Audit Objection was furnished to the appellant only through the communication dated 14.9.2002. 11.5. In the above stated circumstances, the question that remains to be considered is as to whether the respondent can be permitted to re-work the fixation of pay and the excess payment, if any, paid to the appellant based on wrong fixation of pay right from 1.2.1984 and seek for recovery of a huge sum of Rs.3,95,093/- from the terminal benefits payable to the appellant. It is relevant to state that between 1.2.1984 i.e. the date of appointment of the appellant as Superintendent in the respondent University, till he was allowed to retire from service on 31.12.2001, the respondent did not raise its little finger as regards the alleged excess payment paid to the appellant. On the other hand, knowing fully well about the previous employment of the appellant, the respondent University in its offer of appointment, dated 13.6.1983 as well as the order of appointment dated 21.7.1983, specifically mentioned that the pay of the appellant was being fixed in a particular scale ensuring the pay last drawn by the appellant in his previous employment. That apart, it is not known why inspite of the Audit Objections raised as early as in the year 1984-85, the respondent did not intimate the same to the appellant nor taken any proceedings for suitably re-fixing the pay fixed at the time of issuance of the order of appointment in accordance with Rule 44(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The respondent thus, with its eyes wide open, fixed the pay of the appellant in a particular scale of pay applicable to him and also allowed him to draw that pay throughout his service in the respondent University till the date of his retirement. Therefore, while the respondent was squarely responsible for the wrong fixation of pay, if any, of the appellant, the appellant was never to be blamed as regards his pay fixation. Neither in the offer of appointment nor in the appointment order, the appellant was ever reminded about any intimation required as regards the receipt of pension in the erstwhile service rendered by him in the State Government. 11.6. Having regard to all the above factors, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent is now estopped from attempting to reverse the whole process of pay fixation made and the payment of salary made to the appellant right from the date of his appointment till the date of his superannuation. For whatever excess payment made to the appellant, even if the same was due to wrong fixation of pay contrary to the provisions contained in Rule 44(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the whole liability will have to be borne by the respondent or if need be, the said liability to be recovered from the concerned authorities who was/were responsible for the commission of such lapses which resulted in any excess payment of salary. Certainly, in our considered view, the appellant cannot be made to bear such a huge liability and recovery of the same to be permitted, that too from the terminal benefits payable to the appellant. Such a course, as rightly held by the single Judge, would be highly inequitable and will be totally unjustified. 11.7. In this context, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fully supports his submissions. In the judgment reported in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. K.O. Varghese and Others (supra), in paragraph 36, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "36 In addition to the general questions raised in other appeals, one other aspect which needs to be noted is that some amount was sought to be recovered from the respondents on the ground that they were paid amounts in excess of their legal entitlements. The attempt to recover the amount was resisted by the respondent employees who filed writ petitions before the High Court which at the first instance directed disposal of the representations filed by them. On fresh consideration, orders were passed for recovery. The ground taken for directing recovery was that there was wrong fixation of pay. That was again challenged before the High Court. Taking note of the fact that pay was fixed in 1974 and the writ petitioners were not responsible for any wrong fixation of pay, the recovery of the amount was held to be inequitable by the learned single Judge of the High Court. The writ appeal was also dismissed. In addition to the questions raised in other appeals the Corporation has assailed the directions of the High Court not to recover. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the peculiar circumstances noticed, the High Court, we do not find any scope for interference with that part of the High Court's direction which related to recovery of the amounts allegedly paid extra to the employees. So far as other issues are concerned, this shall be examined by the High Court afresh as directed. " In the light of the special facts noted in this case also, we hold that the ratio laid down in the said decision can be applied to the facts of the case on hand and the recovery of any amount based on wrong fixation of pay cannot be allowed to be made. In the decision reported in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Others (supra) as well as in the decision reported in Nand Kishore Sharma and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since there was no. misrepresentation on the part of the employee concerned, a benefit of the higher pay scale extended to the employee by wrong construction made by the employer cannot result in any recovery to be made at a later point of time. In the above decisions, it has also been held that such a recovery, which is sought to be made without giving opportunity to the employee, cannot be permitted to be made. In the above decisions, it has also been held that such a recovery, which is sought to be made without giving opportunity to the employee, cannot be permitted to be made. The above said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the decisions also equally apply to the facts of this case, inasmuch as the appellant was neither responsible nor was any opportunity extended to him till he was allowed to retire on 31.12.2001 as regards the so-called excess payment made to the appellant. 11.8. Accordingly, the said part of the recovery which is sought to be made by the respondent in the order impugned in the writ petition which has been set aside by the learned single Judge is upheld. 12.1. The second item of recovery related to the grant of selection grade pay to the appellant in the post of Assistant Registrar. After the initial appointment as Superintendent in the respondent University on 1.2.1984, by order dated 10.1.1990, the appellant along with one S. Palaniappan was promoted as Assistant Registrar and were placed on probation for a period of two years. By proceedings dated 20.1.1992, the successful completion of probation was declared with effect from the afternoon of 10.1.1992. It is common ground that grant of selection grade pay is payable only after successful completion of 10 years of service in the particular post. It is also not in dispute that the grant of selection grade pay came to be made in the case of the appellant after completion of seven years of service in the post of Assistant Registrar. If that be so, the same was not in consonance with the rule relating to fixation of selection grade scale of pay. In fact, it is stated that at the time when such a grant for selection grade scale was made, it was admitted by the appellant and other employees that in the event of such selection grade sanction not being approved by the competent authority, they would agree for recovery of the excess payment made. 12.2. Having regard to the above facts, we are of the view that the appellant cannot now be permitted to state that in spite of such an understanding between the parties in the matter of grant of selection grade scale of pay, the respondent would still be not entitled to recover any excess payment on that score. 12.2. Having regard to the above facts, we are of the view that the appellant cannot now be permitted to state that in spite of such an understanding between the parties in the matter of grant of selection grade scale of pay, the respondent would still be not entitled to recover any excess payment on that score. We therefore hold that to that extent whatever excess payment made by virtue of the grant of selection grade scale alone can be recovered from the terminal benefits payable to the appellants and in other respects the respondent cannot be permitted to make any recovery. 13. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The appellant is entitled for pension to be calculated and paid based on the provisions available under the Service Statutes of the respondent University, as provided under Chapter 16, for the period of service rendered by the appellant between 1.2.1984 and 31.12.2001 in the respondent University, independent of whatever pension earned by the appellant for his erstwhile service in the State Government. The respondent is, therefore, directed to pass appropriate orders sanctioning pension to the appellant as directed above. (ii) The recovery sought to be made in the impugned order, dated 22.4.2004, in proceedings Na.Ka.No.1/118/2002, insofar as it related to recovery of excess payment made on the basis of wrong fixation of pay without reference to Rule 44(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules cannot be made and the same is hereby set aside. (iii) The respondent is however entitled to recover any excess payment made by virtue of the grant of selection grade scale of pay to the appellant in the post of Assistant Registrar, for which the respondent shall pass a separate order after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. (iv) The impugned order, dated 22.4.2004 is hereby set aside. (v) The respondent is directed to calculate the pension and sanction the same as directed in sub-para (i) to paragraph 13 of this order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall also disburse the other terminal benefits, other than pension, payable to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after making necessary deductions as permitted in sub-para (iii) of paragraph 13 of this order. 14. The respondent shall also disburse the other terminal benefits, other than pension, payable to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after making necessary deductions as permitted in sub-para (iii) of paragraph 13 of this order. 14. The W.A.No.141 of 2005 is partly allowed and W.A.No.242 of 2005 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Connected W.A.M.P.No.162 of 2005 is closed. Ordered accordingly.

P. Arumugam v. Registrar, Tamil University, Thanjavur