Pay-reduction challenges became infructuous after employees were retained in university service.

The petitioners, employed as Special Officers or Liaison Officers in Annamalai University’s Study Centres, challenged G.O.(Ms.) No.108 dated 28.04.2017, which identified non-teaching staff as surplus and provided for their migration on deputation to Government departments. They apprehended that redesignation and deployment would reduce their pay. One petitioner separately challenged the University Registrar’s proceedings concerning implementation of the 2017 revised pay rules

At the hearing, counsel submitted that the petitioners had been retained by the University, continued to work there, and had suffered no reduction in pay; the respondents confirmed their continued service

Whether the petitioners’ challenge to the Government order and their claims concerning redesignation, deployment, and protection of pay required adjudication when they remained in University service without a reduction in pay

Whether the separate pay-revision challenge in W.P.(MD) No.10199 of 2018 required further adjudication in light of the petitioners’ continued service and the submissions recorded by the Court

The order identifies no statute, regulation, or substantive legal doctrine as the basis for its decision.

The Court disposed of the petitions on the respondents’ submission, recorded by the Court, that the petitioners had been retained in University service and had suffered no reduction in pay; it also recorded the parties’ reliance on the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.1309 of 2024, dated 24.03.2025, without setting out or independently applying its principles

The petitioners’ grievances concerned anticipated adverse consequences from surplus-staff redeployment, including a lower pay scale. At the hearing, however, both sides stated that the petitioners remained University employees and that their pay had not been reduced.

In light of those submissions, the Court treated the disputes as no longer requiring adjudication and recorded the respondents’ position

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions