JUDGMENT : 1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Minutes No.9.4.4. Of the 9th meeting of the fourth respondent held on 26.07.2012 and the consequential Madurai Kamaraj University Syndicate Resolution in Item No.32 of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 21.08.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to forbear the respondent No.3 from making any recovery from the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner was initially appointed as Production Assistant in the department of Audio Visual Research Centre / Educational Multimedia Research Centre. The said department is treated as the separate entity with 100% financial support of UGC. Accordingly, the staff members employed under the department are governed by the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the University and the University Grants Commission. In other words, the terms and conditions stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding would be binding on the employees working under the said department of the University. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the salary fixed was reduced and recovery was imposed. Further, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the recovery was imposed without even issuing any show cause notice and providing opportunity to the writ petitioner and therefore the same is the violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the third respondent University in its order dated 01.07.2009, upgraded as a Producer Senior scale and Producer selection grade scale granted to the writ petitioner was incorrect and erroneous. The order passed by the respondent subsequently states that the writ petitioner was upgraded as Producer Senior scale and Producer selection grade. Thus, the statement made by the writ petitioner in his affidavit is incorrect. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further states that the writ petitioner was the holder of technical position and therefore he cannot be granted with the scale of pay applicable to the teaching faculty. Therefore, the scale of pay received by the writ petitioner on par with the teaching faculty was contrary to the terms and conditions of Memorandum of Understanding and the staff pattern. Thus, the UGC has negatived the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of the scale of pay as applicable to the teaching faculty. 5. Therefore, the scale of pay received by the writ petitioner on par with the teaching faculty was contrary to the terms and conditions of Memorandum of Understanding and the staff pattern. Thus, the UGC has negatived the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of the scale of pay as applicable to the teaching faculty. 5. The Minutes of the meeting of the selection committee constituted, considered the candidates for promotion as Producer to Producer (Senior Scale) and Assistant Engineer to Assistant Engineer (Senior Scale) of Educational Multimedia Research Centre (EMMRC) of Madurai Kamaraj University held on 04.02.2009 in the Syndicate Rules. The said committee recommended the writ petitioner S.Ravikumar to be promoted from Producer to Producer (Senior Scale) subject to the approval of the board of management, EMMRC. Further the promotion was granted subject to the following conditions. “b. Date of Promotion is subject to the condition of availment of Extraordinary leave, if any, during the eligibility period. c. He has to complete two Refresher Courses of four weeks duration d. He has to furnish an undertaking that he will refund the amounts so received on account of Promotion to Senior Scale, incase the UGC does not approve this benefit. e. He shall not work on any assignment other than the EMMRC of Madurai Kamaraj University.” 6. The condition -D categorically enumerates that the petitioner has to furnish an undertaking that he will refund the amounts so received on account of promotion to Senior Scale in case of UGC does not approve his benefits. Thus, it is unambiguous that the writ petitioner would be eligible to continue the senior scale only in the event of grant of approval by the University Grants Commission. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent states that based on the orders passed by the University, the proposal was submitted that grant of approval before the UGC. The UGC passed an order in March, 2012 and a copy is granted to the Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, is stated as follows: “Sir, With reference to your letter No.MKU/LC/EMMRC/2011 dated 03.11.2012 on the subject mentioned above, I am to say that the matter regarding recovery of the promotion arrears given to Dr.S.Ravi Kumar was considered by the UGC. In this connection, it has been decided that inadmissible expenditure has to be recovered, if already given. In this connection, it has been decided that inadmissible expenditure has to be recovered, if already given. The university is requested to follow the norms and set the matter in right way. You are further advised to make an appeal before the Court.” 8. Thus the Minutes of the respondent University was not approved by the University Grants Commission as the department itself is governed by the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Madurai Kamaraj University and the University Grants Commission. Thus the University cannot violate the terms and conditions, in view of the fact that the grant-in-aid of 100% is received from the UGC in respect of the department, in which the writ petitioner is working. This being the factum of the case, the learned counsel for the respondents states that there is no error in respect of the order of recovery issued by the respondent and the scale of pay as applicable to the technical cadre would be granted to the writ petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding. Even as per the terms and conditions, the writ petitioner is eligible to hold the technical position and certainly not the teaching position. 9. This Court has to consider whether, the recovery imposed on the writ petitioner is in accordance with law or not. 10. The writ petitioner was promoted as a Producer (Senior scale) and the pay was granted by the respondent University. However, the said fixation of pay was not approved by the University grants commission. Even at the time of grant of promotion, an undertaking was provided by the writ petitioner. Thus in view of the undertaking the present order of recovery has to be looked into. No doubt, any order affecting the right of the employee has to be issued only after providing an opportunity. A show cause notice is necessary for imposing recovery on the employee. However, in the present case, no show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner before issuing the impugned order of recovery. But even at the time of granting of promotion, the writ petitioner has executed a letter of undertaking that he will repay the excess amount if the UGC has not approved his promotion. It is not as if there is an error in calculation in respect of the scale of pay granted to the writ petitioner. But even at the time of granting of promotion, the writ petitioner has executed a letter of undertaking that he will repay the excess amount if the UGC has not approved his promotion. It is not as if there is an error in calculation in respect of the scale of pay granted to the writ petitioner. In fact, it is a clear case where an undertaking is given by the writ petitioner that in the event of non-approval by the UGC, he will repay the entire excess salary. When such a clear undertaking is provided by the writ petitioner at the time of securing promotion, now he cannot go back and say that the respondents have not issued any show cause notice before imposing recovery. 11. In the present writ petition, the letter of undertaking furnished by the writ petitioner is a pre-condition for securing promotion. When the undertaking becomes the pre-condition, the writ petitioner cannot claim that a show cause notice should be issued before issuing impugned order of recovery. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh held as follows: “10. In State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: “(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employee, or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 11. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India while considering the legal principles settled in the earlier judgment of State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) clarified that in the event of an officer furnishing an undertaking, while receiving the revised scale is bound by the undertaking. Thus the officer cannot go back and say that further opportunity to be given to him. In the present case, the writ petitioner has executed an undertaking and secured promotion on condition that the promotion granted is subject to the approval of the University Grants Commission. When the proposal of the University was negatived by the UGC, the writ petitioner cannot claim any right of salary based on the fixation originally granted pursuant to the order of promotion. This being the factum of the case, this Court is of an opinion that there is no infirmity as such in respect of the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 13. The issuance of show cause notice need not be followed as an empty formality. Providing an opportunity must have a real sense and meaning. In the present writ petition, no such occasion arose and in fact, the writ petitioner himself knowing the consequences, executed a letter of undertaking. Thus he is not entitled for any relief as such sought for in this writ petition. 14. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner may be permitted to submit a further representation/appeal to the authorities. It is needless to state that he is at liberty to prefer an appeal/representation to the authorities to consider his case, if any grounds are raised in this regard. 14. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner may be permitted to submit a further representation/appeal to the authorities. It is needless to state that he is at liberty to prefer an appeal/representation to the authorities to consider his case, if any grounds are raised in this regard. In the event of submitting any such representation/appeal by the writ petitioner, the competent authorities are at liberty to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law. Thus no further adjudication is required in respect of the other grounds raised in this writ petition. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.