An undertaking expressly subject to pending litigation cannot defeat benefits resulting from its favourable outcome.

The appellant, M. Selvam, challenged an order dated 11.06.2015 issued by the Regional Joint Director, Local Fund Audit Department, the consequential revised pay re-fixation order dated 25.01.2016 issued by Bharathidasan University, and the recovery order dated 15.04.2016.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, W.P.(MD) No.8706 of 2016, on 11.03.2022, relying on the decision in W.P.(MD) No.8032 of 2015 and connected cases.

During the relevant proceedings, the appellant had furnished an undertaking in connection with the re-fixation and recovery, but the undertaking was expressly subject to the result of the pending writ proceedings.

Subsequent proceedings in the connected litigation, including Review Application (MD) No.170 of 2022, culminated in an order favourable to the appellant on 28.04.2023.

Whether the appellant’s undertaking could be relied upon to sustain the re-fixation and recovery orders when the undertaking was expressly made subject to the outcome of the pending judicial proceedings.

Whether, in light of the subsequent order in Review Application (MD) No.170 of 2022, the dismissal of the appellant’s writ petition by the learned Single Judge could be sustained.

Whether the appellant was entitled to consequential benefits flowing from the subsequent judicial determination.

An undertaking must be construed according to its express terms and cannot be treated in isolation from a condition expressly making it subject to the result of pending judicial proceedings.

Where subsequent judicial proceedings confer a benefit upon the employee, that benefit cannot be denied merely because the employee had furnished such a conditional undertaking.

A subsequent material judicial development, particularly the order in Review Application (MD) No.170 of 2022, may justify interference with an earlier order that had relied upon the superseded legal position.

The Court found that the appellant’s undertaking was not unconditional; it expressly contemplated that its operation would depend upon the result of the pending writ proceedings and appeal.

Accordingly, the respondents could not invoke the undertaking independently to deny benefits that subsequently accrued to the appellant through judicial orders.

Since the connected litigation had undergone a material change and Review Application (MD) No.170 of 2022 had been allowed on 28.04.2023, the basis on which the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition was no longer sustainable.

The Court therefore concluded that the earlier dismissal required appellate interference.

The Division Bench set aside the order dated 11.03.2022 in W.P.(MD) No.8706 of 2016 and allowed the writ appeal.

The respondents were directed to extend all consequential benefits to the appellant in accordance with law.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.