Judgment :- Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent dated 17. 2005 made in P21/1/M33-341/REV/2005-2006/3851-PPO No-C1 48380/EDA, whereby the re-fixation of the pension of the petitioner who was employed in the third respondent College, was ordered. The petitioner has brought forth this writ petition for a writ of certiorarified mandamus. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed in the third respondent College from 1973, and till his retirement in 2000, he was actually working as an Attender. The pay was fixed, and accordingly, it has been paid. Now, there is an order by the first respondent for re-fixation of his pension stating that between 1975 and 1979, there was no grant by the Government; that during that period, the calculation of pension has been done as if the grant was made at that time; that it was a mistake that has crept in, and under the circumstances, it has become necessary for re-fixation of the pension. Accordingly, the first respondent has issued the orders, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 4. The learned Government Advocate would submit that in the instant case, it is true that originally, there was fixation of pension as if the grant was made during the relevant period between 1975 and 1979, but not done so; that when it came to the knowledge of the first respondent, it became necessary to issue orders for the re-fixation of pension, and it was rightly done. Added further the learned Government Advocate that in the instant case, once there was no grant at all, and the fixation of pension was made as if the grant was made, there is no impediment in law for making re-fixation of the pension, and under the circumstances, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. 5. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. It is quite clear that the petitioner was actually working as an Attender in the third respondent educational institution from 1973 to 2000, and he has also retired in 2000. Now, the proceedings have been initiated in the year 2005 for re-fixation of pension. Now, at this juncture, all the factual positions would clearly indicate the thorough unfairness on the part of the first respondent. Firstly, there was a delay. Now, the proceedings have been initiated in the year 2005 for re-fixation of pension. Now, at this juncture, all the factual positions would clearly indicate the thorough unfairness on the part of the first respondent. Firstly, there was a delay. While he came to the employment in the year 1973 and he also served till 2000, now the proceedings have been initiated in the year 2005 as if there was no aid by the Government, and thus, the re-fixation was bad. It is pertinent to point out that after the lapse of a period of five years, the proceedings have been initiated. 7. Secondly, once the pension was already fixed, and it was also given effect to, and payments were made, now making a re-fixation even without any notice to the aggrieved party namely the petitioner, was nothing but a glaring example where the principles of natural justice have been offended, and on that ground, it would be thoroughly unreasonable and unfair. Under the circumstances, without any hesitation, the order of the first respondent has got to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed, and this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP and WVMP are closed.