JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioners seek extension of benefit of pay protection approved and ordered by the Executive Council of the Central University of Kerala. The petitioners state that they have been working as regular employees of Banaras Hindu University. When the 1 st respondent-Central University of Kerala notified vacancies of Section Officer and Private Secretary, the petitioners appeared in the written examination and skill test and were issued with appointment orders in November and December 2011 respectively as per Exts.P2 and P2(a). 2. The petitioners state that they have joined the 1 st respondent-University after obtaining separate relieving letter from Banaras Hindu University, as is evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioners joined the 1 st respondent-University retaining their lien to the post in the Banaras Hindu University. The initial pay of the petitioners in the 1 st respondent-University was fixed reckoning a last pay certification issued by the Banaras Hindu University. Exts.P5 and P5(a) would show that the petitioners were granted pay protection. 3. The petitioners state that the petitioners were following under the Statutory Pension Scheme and therefore requested for protection of pay during the selection process and the University accepted the same. The petitioners would not have accepted employment with the 1 st respondent-University had they refused the protection of pay before expiry of the lien. The probation of the petitioners was not declared for over two years. For the said reason, the lien of the petitioners in the Banaras Hindu University were also extended. 4. The petitioners state that the petitioners enjoyed the benefit of pay protection granted by the 1 st respondent-University during the entire service period. The probation of the petitioners was declared by the 2 nd respondent on 19.02.2015 only. When the probation was declared, the petitioners submitted request for technical resignation to their former employer Banaras Hindu University and the same was accepted as can be seen from Exts.P8 and P8(a) respectively. 5. Though the previous employer Banaras Hindu University granted pro-rata terminal benefits and other benefits including leave encashment, 1 st respondent was not required to reckon previous service for the purpose of service benefits and to carry GPF and other Pension Scheme which was enjoyed by the petitioners at Banaras Hindu University. The petitioners were forced to accept 10% deduction from the salary towards contribution of NPS. 6. The petitioners were forced to accept 10% deduction from the salary towards contribution of NPS. 6. The petitioners submitted Exts.P11 and P11(a) representation to the 2 nd respondent seeking to implement pay protection after the technical resignation. The Executive Council of the University considered Exts.P11 and P11(a) and acceded the request. However, the Officer of the 1 st respondent-University was reluctant to implement the decision of the Executive Committee. 7. The petitioners would submit that the 1 st respondent had already extended the benefit of pay protection to not less than seven employees in the establishment. In pursuant to Ext.P1 decision of the Executive Committee, the respondents had issued an order dated 25.09.2023 directing the petitioners to submit their acceptance of the orders issued by the Executive Council. The petitioners joined the 1 st respondent- University and submitted request for technical resignation only due to the fact that the earlier pay was protected and reckoned for disbursal of salary by the 1 st respondent. Therefore, there is no justification to deny Statutory Pension Scheme to the petitioners, urged the petitioners. 8. For the afore reasons, the petitioners sought to command the 1 st respondent to extend the benefit ordered in Ext.P1 decision and Exts.P12 and P13 orders to the petitioners by granting protection of pay and reimburse the amount unlawfully recovered from them. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not insisting for relief no.2 in the writ petition relating to the Statutory Pension Scheme. The eligibility of the petitioners for Statutory Pension and legal issues may be left open. 9. The respondents resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The respondents submitted that any decision having substantial financial implication has to be ratified by the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is a statutory creation as per Section 24 of the Central University of Kerala Act , 2009. The Central of University of Kerala has no Statutory Pension Scheme. 10. 9. The respondents resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The respondents submitted that any decision having substantial financial implication has to be ratified by the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is a statutory creation as per Section 24 of the Central University of Kerala Act , 2009. The Central of University of Kerala has no Statutory Pension Scheme. 10. Standing Counsel pointed out that while joining the Central University of Kerala, the petitioners had submitted Ext.P12(a) undertaking stating that if at any point of time any loss to the exchequer is found or if any excess payment is found having made against the rule, it will be remitted back to the University and in the event of pay have been fixed in a manner contrary to the provisions contained in rules, any excess payment so made shall be refunded by the petitioners to the Government by adjustment against future payments. In view of the specific undertaking given by the petitioners, the petitioners cannot claim that their pay should not be adduced or recovery cannot be made. The issue relating to pay protection erroneously granted to the petitioners was placed before the Finance Committee for a decision. The clarification is awaited. 11. On the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that other persons working in the Central University of Kerala have also been extended similar benefits in the matter of initial Pay Fixation, the Standing Counsel submitted that the others who were granted pay protection were not similarly situated. The Standing Counsel reiterated that in view of the Central University of Kerala Act and Statutes, such decision cannot be taken without the approval of the Finance Committee. The writ petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, contends the Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 13. The writ petition is filed by the petitioners who were employees of the 1 st respondent-Central University of Kerala seeking two reliefs. The petitioners prayed to direct the 1 st respondent to extend the benefits ordered in Ext.P1 decision, Exts.P12 and P13 orders granting protection of pay and to reimburse the amount unlawfully recovered from them. 13. The writ petition is filed by the petitioners who were employees of the 1 st respondent-Central University of Kerala seeking two reliefs. The petitioners prayed to direct the 1 st respondent to extend the benefits ordered in Ext.P1 decision, Exts.P12 and P13 orders granting protection of pay and to reimburse the amount unlawfully recovered from them. The petitioners further prayed to command the 1 st respondent to permit the petitioners to continue under the statutory pension scheme enjoyed by them with the previous employer. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are not pressing for the relief as regards the statutory pension. 14. The petitioners were working as regular employees under the Banaras Hindu University. The 1 st respondent-Central University notified vacancies of Section Officer and Private Secretary. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and skill test. They were selected and appointed in the months November and December, 2011 respectively. The 1 st petitioner was appointed as Section Officer and the 2 nd petitioner was appointed as Private Secretary. 15. When the petitioners were appointed in the 1 st respondent-Central University, the pay drawn by them in the Banaras Hindu University were protected. This is evident from Exts.P5 and P5(a). Ext.P1 Minutes of the 61 st Meeting of the Executive Council of the Central University would indicate that there was a conscious decision by the University to extend pay protection to the petitioners. Exts.P5 and P5(a) would also reveal that the petitioners were granted the benefit of pay protection at the time of their appointment in the Central University. 16. The probation of the petitioners was declared only on 19.02.2015 as per Exts.P7 and P7(a). The petitioners were granted pro-rata terminal benefits by the former employer. 17. The 1 st respondent was not prepared to reckon previous service of the petitioners for the purpose of service benefits. To the surprising predicament of the petitioners, the pay of the petitioners was retrospectively revised as per Ext.P9 order dated 31.01.2018. When the petitioners submitted representation against Ext.P9, the process of recovery was kept in abeyance for a couple of month. Thereafter, the recovery resumed. 18. The Executive Council of the University had taken a decision to grant pay protection to the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners were granted pay protection. When the petitioners submitted representation against Ext.P9, the process of recovery was kept in abeyance for a couple of month. Thereafter, the recovery resumed. 18. The Executive Council of the University had taken a decision to grant pay protection to the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners were granted pay protection. Therefore, withdrawal of the pay protection and consequential recovery from salary is illegal and unsustainable. A number of other employees under the Central University are enjoying the benefit of pay protection. Therefore, similar treatment should be extended to the petitioners also. 19. The respondents submit that a Committee of experts was constituted to review the fixation of pay of the employees in the Central University. The Committee stated that since the petitioners had received pension from his previous employer, their initial pay is to be fixed as per entry pay of the reemployed post. There were irregularities in the fixation of pay. A Committee constituted subsequently re-examined the matter. On the basis of their reports, the Executive Council resolution dated 11.02.2023 resolved to approve the recommendations of the earlier Committee. 20. It may be noted that the petitioners were appointed in the Central University of Kerala about 14 years ago, in the year 2011. The petitioners were granted pay protection as they were working in the Banaras Hindu University before their joining in Central University. Exts.P5 and P5(a) orders show that the petitioners were granted pay protection. The probation of the petitioners was declared in the year 2015. 21. The pay of the petitioners was retrospectively revised by the 1 st respondent in the year 2018 as per Ext.P9. The reason now advanced by the respondents is that since the petitioners had received terminal benefits from the previous employer, they are not entitled to pay protection. The Finance Committee has discussed the issue and has resolved to refer the matter to Ministry of Education and UGC for further comments/clarifications, as per Ext.R1(a). 22. As the respondents are yet to take a final decision after obtaining clarification from Ministry of Education and UGC, it would be only just and proper that proceedings of recovery initiated against the petitioners are deferred till the respondents take a final decision after obtaining clarification from the Ministry of Education and UGC. 22. As the respondents are yet to take a final decision after obtaining clarification from Ministry of Education and UGC, it would be only just and proper that proceedings of recovery initiated against the petitioners are deferred till the respondents take a final decision after obtaining clarification from the Ministry of Education and UGC. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to stop recovery proceedings against the petitioners till the respondents take a final decision after obtaining clarifications from the Ministry of Education and UGC. The question of refund of amounts recovered from the petitioners will depend upon the final decision to be taken by the respondents. If the final decision goes against the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. The issue relating to the statutory pension raised by the petitioners is left open.