JUDGMENT : A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. 1. The University of Kerala, its Registrar and the Syndicate are the appellants in this Writ Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.10.2020 of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows. 2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition had responded to a Notification inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in various departments of the Kerala University, including the Institute of Management in Kerala, on 17.06.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner possessed the required qualification stipulated in the Notification for appointment as a Lecturer. In fact, the Selection Committee, which met on 06.11.2012 recommended the petitioner for selection as Lecturer and placed the said recommendation before the Syndicate of the University for approval. The Syndicate of the University that met to consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee approved the selection of four other persons, who had applied for posts in other Departments, but deferred the approval of the petitioner's selection, on the ground that, there were allegations pending as regards the conduct of the petitioner. This led the petitioner to approach this Court through W.P. (C) No. 7565 of 2013 that was disposed by Ext.P1 judgment dated 18.08.2015 holding that inasmuch as the procedure prescribed under the Statute envisaged that recommendations of the Selection Committee shall be placed before the Syndicate, which shall make the appointments, the role of the Syndicate was only to approve the recommendations and it could not hesitate from taking a decision as such. The learned Judge, therefore, directed the University to place the proceedings of the Selection Committee in respect of the selection of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in the Institute of Management in Kerala before the Syndicate at its next Meeting, and to take emergent proceedings for his appointment without any further delay. It was also observed that inasmuch as the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily denied the appointment, which was due in January 2013, the University should also consider his claim for grant of benefits as in the case of those appointed before 01.04.2013. 3. It was also observed that inasmuch as the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily denied the appointment, which was due in January 2013, the University should also consider his claim for grant of benefits as in the case of those appointed before 01.04.2013. 3. It would be relevant to notice at this stage that the benefit sought for by the petitioner, and which was alluded to in the 2nd direction of the learned Single Judge in the judgment referred above, was essentially with regard to the lost opportunity of the petitioner for claiming the benefit of continuing under the Statutory Pension Scheme under the Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KSR’) as against the newly introduced National Pension Scheme that was made applicable to those appointed subsequent to 01.04.2013 in the University. The contention of the petitioner was essentially that, inasmuch as others who had responded to the very same Notification to which he had responded, had been duly recommended for selection by the Selection Committee and had been appointed as such prior to 01.04.2013, thereby obtaining the benefit of opting for the Statutory Pension Scheme under the KSR, the said benefit of option had to be extended to the petitioner also. 4. It would appear that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2015 was taken in appeal by a 3rd person but the said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Acting on the directions in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, however, the University proceeded to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer with effect from 02.06.2016. In view of the introduction of the National Pension Scheme, in the meanwhile, it was the stand of the University that the petitioner, who was appointed as Lecturer would necessarily come under the ambit of the National Pension Scheme and could not claim the benefit of continuing under the Statutory Pension Scheme under the KSR. This led the petitioner to approach this Court through W.P. (C) No. 8587 of 2017 that was disposed by Ext.P6 judgment, which set aside the impugned communication dated 17.02.2017 of the University that refused to include the petitioner under the Statutory Pension Scheme. In Ext.P6 judgment, the University was directed to place the matter before the Syndicate so as to enable the Syndicate to pass a fresh order within a period of two months. In Ext.P6 judgment, the University was directed to place the matter before the Syndicate so as to enable the Syndicate to pass a fresh order within a period of two months. It was also made clear that pending such decision, no deduction would be made to the National Pension Scheme from the salary due to the petitioner. 5. Consequent to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, the Syndicate of the University, by Ext.P7 decision dated 10.10.2017, considered the issue but found that inasmuch as there was no direction by the Court to reckon the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer with retrospective effect from the date prior to 01.04.2013 when other candidates, who responded to the same Notification as the petitioner had obtained appointment in the University, the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of continuation under the Statutory Pension Scheme under the KSR could not be considered favourably. It was aggrieved by the said decision of the Syndicate dated 10.10.2017 that the petitioner once again approached this Court through W.P. (C) No. 40939 of 2017, which resulted in the impugned judgment that held that the appointment of the petitioner had to relate back to 31.12.2012 when the other applicants whose selection had been approved by the syndicate had joined service, and the University was directed to grant the service benefits including the benefit of Statutory Pension Scheme in accordance with law by treating the petitioner as appointed on 31.12.2012. Further, after finding that the petitioner had to approach the Court on three occasions, for no fault of his, a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also imposed on the University. As already observed, it is aggrieved by the said directions that the University in appeal before us. 6. We have heard Sri. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel for the University and Senior Advocate Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, duly assisted by Smt. Anuroopa Jayadevan, appearing for the sole respondent. 7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the claim of the respondent, writ petitioner was essentially with regard to the lost opportunity of opting for continuation under the Statutory Pension Scheme under the KSR, that was extended to the other candidates who had responded along with him to the Notification calling for appointment to the posts, inter-alia, of Lecturer in the Institute of Management in Kerala. As already noted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 7565 of 2013, the four other candidates, who had responded to the same Notification and had undergone the selection procedure along with the petitioner, had their appointments approved and were in fact appointed under the University prior to 01.04.2013, the cut off date from which the mandatory coverage under the National Pension Scheme took effect. What the petitioner was essentially claiming before the University, pursuant to the directions in Ext.P1 judgment, was the benefit of the lost opportunity to reckon his pension under the Statutory Pension Scheme under the KSR, in lieu of the National Pension Scheme, by relating his appointment on 02.06.2016 back to the 31.12.2012 for the sole purpose of identifying the pension scheme that would apply to him. In our view, the said claim of the petitioner deserves consideration since it is evident from the subsequent proceedings in the instant case that the Syndicate of the University could not have second guessed the selection of the petitioner and the consequent recommendation made for his appointment by the Selection Committee. The decision of the Syndicate of the University to defer the approval to the appointment of the petitioner, and the delay occasioned later to take a decision with regard to his claim for coverage under the Statutory Pension Scheme, were against the settled principles laid down by this Court as regards the power of the syndicate to act in such circumstances and the Syndicate of the University could not have conducted itself in a manner contrary to what was contemplated under the University Statute. Thus, it was the delay occasioned on account of the illegal acts of the Syndicate of the University that resulted in the delayed appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer with effect from 02.06.2016. For the said delay, the petitioner cannot be prejudiced with regard to the exercise of his right to opt for the pension scheme that should govern his services. 8. No doubt, when considering a claim for pension, it has to be seen as a right accrued for past service and in that view,, the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the University would be an aspect that merits consideration. 8. No doubt, when considering a claim for pension, it has to be seen as a right accrued for past service and in that view,, the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the University would be an aspect that merits consideration. In the instant case, however, we find that the petitioner never claimed the reckoning of any notional service from 31.12.2012 to the actual date of appointment (02.06.2016) for the purposes of service benefits other than the opportunity to opt for the Statutory Pension Scheme under the KSR. The finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, that directs the respondents to grant all service benefits including the benefit of Statutory Pension Scheme in accordance with law by treating the appointment of the petitioner as having been on 31.12.2012 is therefore clearly in excess of what the petitioner himself prayed before the Writ Court. We deem it appropriate, therefore, to modify the said direction and hold that the respondents shall treat the petitioner as having been appointed on 31.12.2012 for the limited purpose of enabling him to opt for the Statutory pension Scheme under the KSR, in lieu of the National Pension Scheme that was introduced subsequently with effect from 01.04.2013. We make it clear that the period from 31.12.2012 to 02.06.2016 shall not be treated as service of the petitioner for any other service benefits save the option for Pension Scheme as indicated above. 9. We also feel that the imposition of the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the University was not justified in the instant case, more so, when there was no such prayer for costs urged by the writ petitioner. The Writ Appeal is disposed as above with the caveat that the directions in this judgment are to be seen as issued based on the peculiar facts of the instant case and shall not be treated as a precedent in any subsequent proceedings.