JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Tezpur University. None appears for the respondent No. 1. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.07.2024, passed by the respondent Tezpur University. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 30.07.2024, the Tezpur University had released the capitalized value of pension and retirement benefit of the petitioner, totaling to Rs. 30,92,665/- including the retirement, gratuity and cash equivalent of un-utilized leave. 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner was originally working as an Assistant Registrar in the Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad. Pursuant to an Advertisement No. F.13/1/1/97, dated 09.03.1999, the petitioner had applied for the post of Deputy Registrar in Tezpur University; wherein, he got selection and was appointed as Deputy Registrar, vide letter dated 10.04.2000. The petitioner assumed his charge on 30.06.2000, after his release from his earlier Office at Dhanbad, on 27.06.2000. Initially, the petitioner was put on probation, and thereafter, vide Resolution No. B, dated 22.05.2001, the petitioner was confirmed in the said post and the petitioner continued to serve in the University as Deputy Registrar. And in the year 2005, he had applied for the post of Registrar at NERIST, Nirjuli, Itanagar, and he got the said post; and on lien for two years, with extra ordinary leave, he joined his new assignment; after being released on 14.05.2007. And in the year 2005, he had applied for the post of Registrar at NERIST, Nirjuli, Itanagar, and he got the said post; and on lien for two years, with extra ordinary leave, he joined his new assignment; after being released on 14.05.2007. As he continued in NERIST on technical resignation, under the provision of FR-22, read with para 26 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, w.e.f. 14.05.2007; and while joining in the Tezpur University in the year 2001, he informed the Registrar that he will opt for pension and other retirement benefits from the Tezpur University; and since his accumulated pension, as pro-rata, will be forwarded by the previous employer for the period from 1981 till 2000, for doing the needful in the matter; the petitioner also informed that while working as Registrar at NERIST, he will opt for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, from the Tezpur University, since NERIST does not follow the pension scheme of the Central Government, by quoting the relevant rule regarding Autonomous Body, where the pension scheme is not in operation; by his letter dated 17.02.2009, he informed the Registrar, Tezpur University, and he opted for retirement benefit from the Tezpur University under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972; and as the petitioner has put more than 25 years of service under the Central Government, and the autonomous bodies under the Central Government, he is eligible for full pension under CCS, Pension Rules, 1972, since he has completed more than 20 years of service. And in spite of repeated request made by the petitioner no action was taken and being aggrieved, by the letter dated 15.05.2021, issued by the Registrar, Tezpur University, asking the petitioner to write to NERIST, Arunachal Pradesh, for pensionary benefit with pro-rata benefit and length of service under Tezpur University will be transferred to NERIST for his acceptance; the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 7416/2022, and thereafter, vide order dated 09.01.2024, this Court was pleased to direct that the pensionary benefit required to be paid to the petitioner will have to be paid by the Tezpur University; and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of, directing the Tezpur University to release pro-rata pension, payable to the petitioner. Thereafter, against the said order, the Tezpur University had preferred an appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 177/2024, before the Division Bench of this Court, and the said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 25.06.2024, with a direction to the Tezpur University to pay the pro-rata pension amount to the petitioner, as directed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, vide order; dated 25.06.2024, while making it clear that after receiving the said pro-rata pension amount, the petitioner will have no right to raise any claim against the Tezpur University for any benefits, including the pensionary benefits. The Division Bench of this Court has not interfered with the impugned order dated 09.01.2024, passed in WP(C) No. 7416/2022; and in spite of clear direction of the learned Single Judge, and also of the Division Bench; the Tezpur University, vide impugned order dated 30.07.2024, has released the capitalized value of the pension and the retirement benefit, totaling Rs. 30,92,665/-, including the retirement gratuity and cash equivalent of un- utilize leave. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.” 5. The respondent Nos. 2-5 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, a stand has been taken that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Registrar in the Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad, and he applied for the post of Deputy Registrar at Tezpur University, and on being selected, he joined on 30.06.2000; after being released from Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was confirmed in the post of the Deputy Registrar, w.e.f. 22.05.2021; and thereafter, the petitioner wrote to the Registrar of Tezpur University for transfer of past service benefit from the previous employer. The Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad remitted the pro-rata pension benefit, amounting Rs. 5,79,752/- to the Tezpur University. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for the post of Registrar at NERIST, Nirjuli, Itanagar, through proper channel; and on being selected, the petitioner was released from Tezpur University on 15.02.2006, with lien for 1 year; enabling him to join the post of Registrar at NERIST, Nirjuli, Itanagar, by office order dated 15.02.2006. 5,79,752/- to the Tezpur University. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for the post of Registrar at NERIST, Nirjuli, Itanagar, through proper channel; and on being selected, the petitioner was released from Tezpur University on 15.02.2006, with lien for 1 year; enabling him to join the post of Registrar at NERIST, Nirjuli, Itanagar, by office order dated 15.02.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for extension of the lien for one more year, w.e.f. 16.02.2007 and he was granted lien for 3 months, w.e.f. 16.02.2007, vide order dated 19.04.2007; and the writ petitioner had submitted his technical resignation from the substantive post of Deputy Registrar at Tezpur University, w.e.f. 14.05.2007, expressing his desire to continue as Registrar at NERIST, by his letter dated 24.07.2007, and he was finally released from the service of Tezpur University, w.e.f. 14.05.2007; by office order dated 15.05.2008. Thereafter, the Registrar of NERIST, vide letter dated 12.09.2019, informed the Registrar, Tezpur University, that the service of the petitioner was terminated during probation period, due to involvement in criminal activities in the campus and a criminal case was registered against him, which is pending; and as such, his terminal benefit cannot be settled for final outcome of the case; and thereafter, the petitioner, concealing the material information of his termination by the erstwhile employer, NERIST, and the pendency of criminal case under Sections 326 /307/34 IPC, on the date of his making application, selection and appointment was also concealed by him. He further got endorsed from the Vice Chancellor on his application for appointment as Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and by giving false information, he got appointed as the Registrar in the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, on discovery of this information, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service at Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh; as per statute 26(5) of the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, with effect from the date of his suspension, i.e., 22.11.2012. Thereafter, on discovery of this information, the writ petitioner was dismissed from service at Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh; as per statute 26(5) of the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, with effect from the date of his suspension, i.e., 22.11.2012. 5.1 It is also stated that the petitioner has submitted technical resignation on 24.07.2007, which was duly accepted, and he was released from the service of Tezpur University, and as such, he is not entitled to get pension from Tezpur University, except transfer of his service record and pro-rata pension; to be transferred to his erstwhile employer, i.e., NERIST; and vide letter dated 15.09.2008, the petitioner had requested for transfer of the provident fund balance, along with the up-to-date accrued interest to the NERIST; and thereafter, vide letter dated 26.11.2008, he requested the Registrar, Tezpur University, to release his provident fund in his favour and not to remit the same to NERIST; and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 2,45,158/-, towards his GPF was paid to him; and since the case of the petitioner is not a case of retirement, monthly pension and retirement gratuity are not admissible to be granted to the petitioner by the Tezpur University; and as per Government of India guidelines, the technical resignation submitted by the petitioner cannot be treated as retirement, and consequently, pensionary retirement gratuity cannot be granted to the petitioner, merely because of the fact that NERIST does not have pension cum gratuity scheme; and as such, the petitioner opted for pension-cum-gratuity from Tezpur University, subsequent to his technical resignation is not admissible. 5.2 It is also stated that the Division Bench, vide order dated 25.06.2024, has disposed of the writ appeal, observing that in view of the affidavit dated 11.06.2024, filed by the petitioner; the writ appeal was disposed of, with a direction to the Tezpur University to pay the pro-rata pension to the petitioner, as directed by the learned Single Judge; while making it clear that after receiving the said pro-rata pension amount, the petitioner has no right to raise any claim against Tezpur University for any benefit, including pensionary benefits; and thereafter, the University has released the pro-rata benefit amount of Rs. 30,92,665/- to the petitioner, as per the direction of this Court; and that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as claimed, for the reason that he has suppressed his dismissal from NERIST, as well as from Indira Gandhi National Tribal University and for not approaching this Court with clean hands. 6. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2-5, wherein, he stated that the Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad remitted Rs. 5,79,752/- to the Tezpur University and the University authorities have paid him GPF gratuity and leave encashment for his service, and he also states that the term ‘technical resignation’ entitles a service holder to be paid continuity of his service in the next establishment and the said fact has nothing to do with the merit of this case, and that the statement in para No. 3(b) of the affidavit-in-opposition does not have any relevance; and that the respondent cannot reagitate the question of payment of pension raising question of technical resignation of service from Tezpur University, and the question of payment of pension and other pensionary benefit to its employees, having been decided by this Court in the writ petition, as well as in the writ appeal; they cannot reagitate the matter before this Court; and that the payment of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity comes under the same rule; and that the Tezpur University has made detailed calculation in respect of his pension, while fixing the same at Rs. 23,050/- as monthly pension and Rs. 5,53,200/-, being death-cum-retirement gratuity, and an amount of Rs. 82,980/- as his leave, due as his equivalent of salary for the earned leave; and in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 7416/2022 in its order dated 09.01.2024, the respondents cannot make out a new case for denying the monthly pension, as Rule 44 of the Pension Rules clearly states that monthly pension to a retired Government employee is calculated of 50% of the emolument or average emolument, whichever is more beneficial to him, subject to minimum of Rs. 9,000/- per month and maximum of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. 7. Mr. 9,000/- per month and maximum of Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. 7. Mr. Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned Single Judge, in the order dated 09.01.2024, in WP(C) No. 7416/2022, has clearly directed at paragraph No. 24, that the Tezpur University will calculate the pensionary benefit payable to the petitioner and release him the said amount as expeditiously as possible, within a outer-limit period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order; and in the paragraph No. 23, it has directed the Tezpur University to release the pro-rata pension payable to the petitioner; by setting aside the order dated 15.03.2021. 7.1. Mr. Chaliha, taking his Court through the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.06.2024, in Writ Appeal No. 177/2024, submits that the Division Bench has disposed of the writ appeal, with a direction to the Tezpur University to pay the pro-rata pension amount to the petitioner, as directed by the learned Single Judge; and also made it clear that after receiving the said pro-rata pension amount, the petitioner has no right to raise any claim against Tezpur University for any benefits, including the pensionary benefit; and the Divison Bench also held that no case for interference is made out in the impugned order dated 09.01.2024, and thereafter, disposed of the appeal. 7.2 Mr. Chaliha, further submits that in contravention of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, and also by the learned Division Bench of this Court, the respondent Tezpur University has issued the impugned order dated 30.07.2024, and thereby, exposing itself for contempt of the Court, for non-compliance of the aforementioned direction; and that the petitioner is entitled to pension at pro-rata basis and as such, the impugned order dated 09.01.2024, is liable to be interfered with and direction may be issued to the Tezpur University to pay the pension amount of the petitioner on pro-rata basis. 8. Per-contra, Mr. 8. Per-contra, Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, Tezpur University; taking this Court through the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court, dated 11.06.2024, especially to the paragraph No. 3, submits that the petitioner made a categorical statement in the said affidavit that he has no further claim in the matter of disposal of his pension and other retirement benefit, and that the petitioner has submitted his technical resignation on 24.07.2007, and on the basis of the said technical resignation, the petitioner was released, so as to enable him to join as Registrar in NERIST, Arunachal Pradesh; and since the petitioner has not retired from Tezpur University, and then he has joined the NERIST; the Tezpur University had released the pro-rata pension of the petitioner, in compliance of the order of this Court; and in view of the affidavit submitted by him in the writ appeal, he is not entitled to any other claim from the Tezpur University. 8.1 Mr. Keyal, further submits that the petitioner, suppressing the material facts had approached this Court; and he was terminated from service during his probation period from NERIST, on account of his criminal activities, for which, a case under Sections 326 /307/34 IPC was registered; and suppressing the factum of his termination from NERIST, he had applied in the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh, and got the post of Registrar there, and he was dismissed from service of Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh; and that he has not approached this Court with clean hands and on such ground, this petition is liable to be dismissed, with exemplary cost. 9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the relevant rules. 10. The basis facts here in this case are not in dispute. 11. While the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Registrar in the Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad, he applied for the post of Deputy Registrar in Tezpur University, pursuant to an advertisement No. F.13/1/1/97, dated 09.03.1999, and he was selected and appointed as Deputy Registrar, and he assumed charge on 30.06.2000, after his release from the Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad, on 27.06.2000. Initially he was under probation, and subsequently, his service was confirmed in the said post. He also served in the Office of the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh from 16.11.1981 to 25.08.1993, and thereafter, he also served in Geological Survey of India from 26.08.1993 to 15.07.1994, which is a Government of India Organization. While he was serving in Tezpur University; he had applied for the post of Registrar in NERIST, Nirjuli, Itanagar, and he was selected and appointed as Registrar there; and thereafter, he applied for lien for 2 years with extra ordinary leave, and the same was granted w.e.f. 15.02.2006, for a period of 1 year only. Subsequently, the same was extended for a period of 3 months and finally, he was released from the service of Tezpur University on 14.05.2007, after technical resignation, under FR-22, read with para 26 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, w.e.f. 14.05.2007 and for the period of service rendered by him, w.e.f. 15.02.2006 to 14.05.2007, the NERIST has remitted the amount in favour of the Tezpur University, with regard to the leave request gratuity and pension contribution, in favour of the petitioner, pertaining to lien period, and the said amount has duly been deposited in the account of the Tezpur University. The petitioner had completed 25 years of service under the Central Government and autonomous bodies, and he is entitled to full pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. And that pro-rata pension was released for a sum of Rs. 5,79,752/- by the Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad to the Registrar, Tezpur University; but the Tezpur University has failed to release the pensionary benefits, and instead intimated the petitioner that his pensionary benefit with pro-rata benefit for the length of service rendered in the Tezpur University will be transferred to NERIST. 12. Though the petitioner has filed one application for not releasing the pensionary benefits, the Tezpur University had failed to release the same. The petitioner had filed a writ petition, being WP(C) No.7416/2022 before this Court; wherein, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the Tezpur University to calculate the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner and to release his pro-rata pension within 60 days. The operative part of the order is reproduced below for ready reference:- “21. The petitioner had filed a writ petition, being WP(C) No.7416/2022 before this Court; wherein, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the Tezpur University to calculate the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner and to release his pro-rata pension within 60 days. The operative part of the order is reproduced below for ready reference:- “21. Under Rule 37 of the CCS Pension Rules upon subsequent absorption in the autonomous body, the government servant will be deemed to have retired on such date of his absorption. As such, the petitioner in terms of Rule 37 of the CCS Pension Rules was deemed to have retired on 15.02.2006. 22. His prior service rendered under the Central Government and the department of Accountant General, Dhanbad School of Mines (now Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad could not have been ignored and was rightly taken into account by the Tezpur University while calculating the pro- rata pension. As the North East Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjull, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh does not have any pension scheme, the pensionary benefits required to be paid to the petitioner will have to be paid by the Tezpur University. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent, Tezpur University to release the pro-rate pension payable to the petitioner. In view of the findings of the Court as discussed above, the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 is set aside. 24. The Tezpur University will calculate the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner and release him the said amount as expeditiously as possible within a outer limit of 60(sixty )days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 13. The Tezpur University then challenged the same by filing one writ appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 177/2024. The Division Bench of this Court had not interfered with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 7416/2022. In the said appeal, the petitioner had filed one affidavit and on the basis of the said affidavit, the said Division Bench had disposed of with a direction to the Tezpur University to pay the pro-rata pension amount to the petitioner, as directed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In the said appeal, the petitioner had filed one affidavit and on the basis of the said affidavit, the said Division Bench had disposed of with a direction to the Tezpur University to pay the pro-rata pension amount to the petitioner, as directed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Further, it appears that the Division Bench had made it clear that after receiving the said pro-rata pension amount, the petitioner has no right to raise any claim against the Tezpur University for any benefits, including the pensionary benefits. 14. The affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench, which is enclosed with the affidavit-in-opposition, at page No. 58; wherein, in paragraph No. 3, the petitioner has clearly stated that he has no further claim in the matter of disposal of his pension and other retirement benefits. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the affidavit is reproduced herein below:- “2. That the Appellant Tezpur University by an order dated 21/07/2023 a passed an order relating to the grant of pensionary benefit to the deponent upon his resignation retirement from Tezpur University on 02/05/2006. The Register of Tezpur University have mald detailed calculation for pensionary liability of Tezpur University and cash equivalent of unutilized earned leave in respect of the deponent. In the said calculation the university authority has fixed monthly pension at Rs. 23,050/- per month. The amount of gratuity is fixed at Rs. 5,53,200 being one fourth of basic pay + NDA. And amount of Rs. 82,980/- is calculated as equivalent of unutilized earned leave during service period. It may be stated here the Tezpur University authority have already released the general provident fund amount to the petitioner in 2008. The deponent is claiming the following amounts as fixed by the university towards his pension and other retirement benefits as mentioned above. (A copy of the details of the calculation made by the Tezpur University is annexed herewith an marked as Annexure - I.) 3. That the deponent submits the above calculation of pension and other retirement benefits are required to be paid to the deponent in view of the service he has rendered in the Tezpur University. The deponent submits that he has no further claim in the matter of disposal of his pension and other retirement benefits. 4. That the deponent submits the above calculation of pension and other retirement benefits are required to be paid to the deponent in view of the service he has rendered in the Tezpur University. The deponent submits that he has no further claim in the matter of disposal of his pension and other retirement benefits. 4. That the deponent submits that university authority may be directed to release of the pensionary benefits to the deponent, as calculated vide Annexure (I).” 15. And the order being passed by the Division Bench of this Court, based upon the affidavit filed by the petitioner, is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 03.06.2024, an affidavit is filed by the respondent No.1 on 11.06.2024, wherein it was stated that if the pro-rata pension amount is paid by the Tezpur University, the respondent No.1 will not raise any claim against the Tezpur University for any benefits including pensionary benefits. In view of the said affidavit dated 11.06.2024 filed by the respondent No.1, we dispose of this writ appeal with a direction to the Tezpur University to pay the pro-rata pension amount to the respondent No.1 as directed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order, while making it clear that after receiving the said pro-rata pension amount, the respondent No.1 has no right to raise any claim against the Tezpur University for any benefits including the pensionary benefits. It is to be clarified that the order dated 03.06.2024 was passed by this Court while hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and finding that no case for interference is made out against the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7416/2022. With these observations and directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of.” 16. Now, the issue before this Court is that, whether the impugned order, dated 21.07.2023, was passed in accordance with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 7416/2022, and in the Writ Appeal No. 177/2024; and whether the petitioner will be entitled to monthly pension, as claimed for, from the respondent Tezpur University; and whether, such claim is supported by any rule, presently occupying the field. 17. 17. It appears that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had observed in the order, dated 09.01.2024, that under Rule 37 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, upon subsequent absorption in the autonomous body; the Government servant will be deemed to have been retired on such date of his absorption. As such, the petitioner, in terms of the Rule 37 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, was deemed to have retired on 15.02.2006. 18. It was further observed that his prior service rendered under the Central Government and under the Department of Accountant General, Indian School of Mines at Dhanbad, (now Indian Institute of Technology, Dhanbad) could not be ignored and was rightly taken into account by the Tezpur University, while calculating the pro-rata pension of the petitioner. As the North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST), Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, does not have any pension scheme, the pensionary benefits required to be paid to the petitioner will have to be paid by the Tezpur University; and thereafter, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent Tezpur University to release the pro-rata pension payable to the petitioner; and thereafter, set aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2021, and further directed the Tezpur University to calculate the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner and release him the said amount as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 19. It also appears from the order of the Division Bench, dated 25.06.2024, in Writ Appeal No. 177/2024; that the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ appeal, with a direction to the Tezpur University to pay the pro-rata pension amount to the petitioner, as directed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the affidavit of the petitioner, dated 11.06.2024. And the Division Bench also made it clear that after receiving the said pro-rata pension amount, the petitioner has no right to raise any claim against the Tezpur University for any benefit, including pensionary benefits. 20. The affidavit, filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court reveals that the Tezpur University, on 21.07.2023, had passed an order relating to grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 30,92,665/ only. 20. The affidavit, filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court reveals that the Tezpur University, on 21.07.2023, had passed an order relating to grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 30,92,665/ only. It is also stated that on payment of the above calculated amount of pension and other retirement benefits, he had no further claim in the matter of disposal of his pension and other retirement benefits. 21. Further, perusal of the Annexure-9 of the petition, so available at page No. 39 which is the order passed by the Registrar, Tezpur University, dated 30.07.2024, indicates that the Tezpur University had calculated the pro-rata amount of capitalize value of pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner, totaling Rs. 30,92,665/- in favour of the petitioner and released the same. 22. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioner was that the pension rule speaks about payment of monthly pension and has not stated about payment of capitalize value to the pensioner; and on such ground, the Tezpur University has committed illegality in making payment of capitalized value of the pension and the said order is contemptuous of the order of this Court. 23. However, it appears from the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 7416/2022, and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Appeal No. 177/2024, that the direction was issued to Tezpur University to pay pro-rata pension amount to the petitioner, and the said amount was paid in capitalized value of pension; though, there was no direction to pay the capitalized value, but the direction was for payment of pro-rata pension. 24. However, there was no direction in the order of the learned Single Judge and also in the order of the Division Bench, about the payment of monthly pension to the petitioner. 25. 24. However, there was no direction in the order of the learned Single Judge and also in the order of the Division Bench, about the payment of monthly pension to the petitioner. 25. It also appears from the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench that, if the calculation indicated in Para No. 2 of the said affidavit is paid to the petitioner, in view of the service rendered by him; he will have no further claim in the matter of disposal of his pension and other retirement benefits, and the same is also made clear in the order of the Division Bench, that after receiving the said pro-rata pension amount, the petitioner has no right to raise any claim against the Tezpur University for any benefit, including pensionary benefits. 26. In view of the aforementioned factual background, the contention made by the petitioner for entitlement of monthly pension from the respondent Tezpur University appears to be unjustified, since no order for payment of monthly pension was made, either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench. 27. Since payment of pro-rata pension amount, i.e. Rs. 30,92,665/- as indicated in Annexure-I of the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench, is being claimed by the petitioner, and since the impugned order, Annexure-9, is being issued by the Tezpur University, for payment of the said amount to the petitioner, and since he had stated in his affidavit before the Division Bench of this Court in W/A No. 177/2024, in no uncertain terms that after payment of the said amount, he will have no further claim in the matter of disposal of his pension and other retirement benefits, now the petitioner, cannot turn around from his earlier stand and raise any claim for payment of monthly pension to him by the Tezpur University, because of the doctrine of equitable estoppels. It is to be noted here that Doctrine of Equitable estoppels, in simpler terms is a way of stopping someone from going back on his word. It is a way of stopping someone from taking legal action that conflicts with his previous claims or behavior, or for testifying to something early on, then changing that testimony later. 28. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to record accordance with the submission of Mr. Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 29. Though Mr. It is a way of stopping someone from taking legal action that conflicts with his previous claims or behavior, or for testifying to something early on, then changing that testimony later. 28. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to record accordance with the submission of Mr. Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 29. Though Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Tezpur University has submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, and that by suppressing his termination from service from the NERIST, he got selected in the post of Registrar at Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh; yet, in view of the relief being sought for in the present petition, the submission of Mr. Keyal appears to be irrelevant for deciding the present petition. 30. In the result, I find no merit in this petition, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.