Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent University dated 28.2.2008, by which the University has rejected the claim of the petitioner to treat the letter of resignation of the petitioner dated 3.4.1996, as a request for voluntary retirement and for direction against the respondent to pay terminal benefits and pension by treating him as having been voluntarily retired. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent University as a Clerk in the year 1972 and he was promoted as Assistant in 1981 and as Superintendent in 1988 and thereafter, he was working in the said capacity. It is stated that he submitted a letter for voluntary retirement dated 21.3.1996 to relieve him with effect from 31.3.1996 A.N. and since it required the approval of the Syndicate, by withdrawing his voluntary retirement letter, he submitted a resignation letter on 3.4.1996 with a request to relieve him from 2.4.1996 A.N. and the same was accepted and he was relieved from duty with effect from 2.4.1996 A.N. a) It is stated that he then made a representation to the respondent University to treat his resignation letter dated 3.4.1996 as with drawn and to treat him as having been relieved under voluntary retirement scheme. He made many representations. It is stated that the Syndicate considered the representation on 15.12.1998 and passed a resolution accepting the request of the petitioner to treat his letter of resignation as a letter under voluntary retirement scheme, taking into consideration that the petitioner had served for 24 years in the University. b) The said decision was communicated to the petitioner on 21.1.1999. However, in the impugned order dated 28.2.2008, the University took a different stand that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and the University Act, 1965 to treat the resignation as voluntary retirement, and in the impugned order it is stated that the resolution of the Syndicate dated 15.12.1998 cannot be implemented. 3. However, in the impugned order dated 28.2.2008, the University took a different stand that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and the University Act, 1965 to treat the resignation as voluntary retirement, and in the impugned order it is stated that the resolution of the Syndicate dated 15.12.1998 cannot be implemented. 3. The said impugned order is challenged on various grounds including that in respect of one Dr.D. Chandran, the application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Syndicate by relaxing the Rules in the resolution dated 24.1.1996 and that the Syndicate being the authority to relax the provisions and having granted permission on 15.12.1998 to the petitioner to be relieved as having been retired voluntarily, cannot change its stand after 10 years, especially after the petitioner reached the age of superannuation, which fell on 31.5.2007. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University, it is stated that the petitioner has given a letter of resignation on 3.4.1996 for the purpose of contesting in the General Election stating that he would not claim any monetary benefits and the resignation letter was accepted and the petitioner was relieved with effect from 2.4.1996 A.N. and the action of the Vice Chancellor was ratified by the Syndicate on 23.4.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation for converting his resignation as voluntary retirement which was placed before the Syndicate and it is admitted that the Syndicate passed a resolution on 15.12.1998 accepting the request of the petitioner and the decision of the Syndicate was communicated to the petitioner on 2.2.1999. a) It is stated that Audit raised objection stating that under the Madurai Kamaraj University Statutes, Volume-I Chapter XXIV, Rule 61, for the employees of Madurai Kamaraj University, Tamil Nadu Pension Rules are followed and as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, after resignation of an employee is accepted, the employee would lose his qualifying service and the retirement benefits cannot be given. It is after the said position was clarified by the Audit, the petitioner in fact made a representation on 4.12.2007, wherein he has stated finally as follows: “9. It is after the said position was clarified by the Audit, the petitioner in fact made a representation on 4.12.2007, wherein he has stated finally as follows: “9. According to the observations offered to you by the Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Chennai and the facts already submitted to you in my earlier petition and also the remarks already offered by the then Legal Advisor of the University, I request you to please pass orders asking the University “to honour the Syndicate resolution dated 15.12.1998 passed in my matter” to enable me to receive all pension benefits from the University. Please note that there will not be any financial commitment to the Government in this regard as pension contribution in respect of me also had already been made by the University. Orders passed in the matter may please be communicated to me also.” thereby stating that there would not be any financial commitment to the Government. b) It is stated by the respondent University that the request of Dr.D.Chandran, Professor and Head of Department of Library & Information Science, Madurai Kamaraj University for voluntary retirement was complied with as a special case by the Syndicate on 24.1.1996. 5. As contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, the Madurai Kamaraj University Act does not permit the Government to issue any direction and therefore, the Government Order has no binding effect on the University which is having autonomous statutory status. That was also held by this Court in Madurai Kamaraj University Administrative Staff Welfare Assn. v. Madurai Kamaraj University [2003 (2) CTC 54], wherein K. Govindarajan,J.(as he then was) held as follows: “12. The respondent-University has come forward with further plea in the counter that in view of the Government Order, they have stopped implementation of the clauses in the said agreement. I am not able to understand as to how the Government can interfere with the administration of the University, as the administration of the respondent University comes only under the Act and Statutes of the University. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not pointed out any one of the provisions under the Act or statutes to show that the Government is having any authority to give such instruction. So, the respondents are not justified in relying on the letter of the Secretary to the Government to deny the benefits given under the agreement and approved by the Syndicate.” 6. So, the respondents are not justified in relying on the letter of the Secretary to the Government to deny the benefits given under the agreement and approved by the Syndicate.” 6. A reference to the resolution of the Syndicate of the respondent University dated 15.12.1998 shows clearly that after elaborate discussion and after referring to previous instances and taking note of the fact that the petitioner rendered 24 years of service and that he contested in the General Election, the Syndicate, which is the authority under the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, by relaxing the rules, accepted the request of the petitioner and allowed him to be relieved as having been voluntarily retired. In the ultimate paragraph, it is stated as follows: Tamil 7. Inasmuch as the respondent University is empowered to pass such orders as per the statutes governing the same, there is absolutely no reason for the University now not to follow the resolution of the Syndicate. As per the statutes, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar are to execute the decisions of the Syndicate. It is pertinent to note that the Registrar of the University has only acted on the basis of the letter of the Government, which itself was based on the objection raised by the Audit. The Registrar, even without referring the matter to the Syndicate, has unilaterally passed the said impugned order dated 28.2.2008, refusing to implement the resolution passed by the Syndicate dated 15.12.1998. 8. On the face of it, the said order is liable to be set aside as the same is against the statutory command given to the Syndicate under the Madurai Kamaraj University Act. It is not as if the petitioner by suppressing any material, has misled the Syndicate to have the resolution passed on 15.12.1998. As stated above, the Syndicate has deliberated various issues in detail running to four pages and accepted to grant relaxation of rules to the petitioner and hence, the same cannot be denied to be implemented by the respondent University. 9. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the respondent stands set aside with direction to the respondent to implement the resolution of the Syndicate dated 15.12.1998, by passing appropriate orders and granting relief to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.