Judgment : Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ appeal has been filed against the judgment of the leaned Single Judge dated 10.02.2010 in W.P.(C).No. 6402 of 2008. The facts necessary to be noted are, the appellant was appointed on 12.3.1991 in the service of the Kerala Agricultural University. After the appointment, the appellant entered into an agreement. Clause (4) of the contract of agreement provided as follows: “4. Notwithstanding the provisions relating to the conditions if service as framed under the Statutes and other ordinances, rules, regulations or orders, it shall be competent for either party to terminate the appointment made hereunder by giving three months notice of its intention to do so.” 3. Subsequently, the University took a decision by amending Clause (4) of the agreement by its decision dated 3.7.1995. The University noticed lot of requests by teaching and non teaching staff for their relieving immediately to take up other employment. University noted that requests for immediate relieving subject to approval of their resignation in due course is being received and since the substitution of scientific staff required time and expenditure it was decided that, only alternative to be provided was to ask for payment of three months salary by the party in lieu of notice time lost for filling of the vacancy. 4. Consequentially Clause (4) of the appointment contract of every salaried officer and teacher of the Kerala Agricultural University was modified to the following terms: “It shall be competent to either party to terminate the appointment made hereunder by giving three months notice or paying to either party an amount equal to three months gross emoluments to which the employee is normally eligible while on duty in lieu of the notice.” 5. The appellant has been selected to take a job in the Cochin University for Science and Technology, requested for relieving. The appellant was relieved on 20.09.2006. Appellant had not given three months' notice as contemplated under Clause (4), as modified on 3.7.1995. Thus appellant's three months salary was deducted. Appellant filed application for refund and it was rejected. Subsequently writ petition was filed. 6. The appellant was relieved on 20.09.2006. Appellant had not given three months' notice as contemplated under Clause (4), as modified on 3.7.1995. Thus appellant's three months salary was deducted. Appellant filed application for refund and it was rejected. Subsequently writ petition was filed. 6. Learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner took a view that in view of Clause (4) as modified, three months' salary was required to be given in lieu of the three months' notice. The action of the University was held to be valid and the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge contended that modification dated 3.7.1995 was to apply prospectively only on those staff which were appointed subsequent to that and who was asked to enter into agreement subsequent to 3.7.1995. He submits that no fresh agreement was entered with the appellant at any point of time. Hence he was not bound by the modified condition of appointment Clause (4) and no recovery of three months' salary could have been made. 7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute that earlier the agreement contained Clause (4) as noted above which was subsequently amended on the basis of the minutes of the executive committee held on 2.6.1995 and Order was issued by the University accordingly on 3.7.1995. Clause (4) as amended has been quoted above which clearly provided that it shall be competent to either party to terminate the appointment by giving three months' notice or paying to either party an amount equal to three months' emolument in lieu of the notice. The submission that the said amendment shall not affect the appellant who was earlier appointed does not comment us. The order dated 3.07.1995 categorically mentions “the Clause (4) of the appointment contract of every salaried officer and teacher of Kerala Agricultural University is modified as follows: “It shall be competent to either party to terminate the appointment made hereunder by giving three months notice or paying to either party an amount equal to three months gross emoluments to which the employee is normally eligible while on duty in lieu of the notice.” 8. The plain meaning of said Clause indicates that the modification of Clause (4) was intended to apply to all salaried officer and teacher. The plain meaning of said Clause indicates that the modification of Clause (4) was intended to apply to all salaried officer and teacher. Use of the word “is notified” clearly contemplate modification of the existing contracts also. The aforesaid decision was taken by the University to provide an alternative for the immediate relieving of the staff who has to take up new employment. The earlier contract provided for three months notice and most of the teachers and non teaching staff insisting for immediate relieving. The said decision was taken only for providing an alternate method for relieving the staff and in view of the above purpose and object it has to be held that said modification was applicable both on existing staff as well as the staff to be appointed subsequently. 9. We thus do not find any error in the action of the University deducting three months notice amount for relieving of the petitioner. The petitioner's application for refund was rightly rejected and we do not find any error in the judgment of the Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. There is no merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.