ORDER : ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, Tezpur University for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The challenge made in this writ petition, firstly, is against an order No. F.14- A/26(E)/3407 dated 29.01.2024 issued by the Registrar (Acting), Tezpur University, whereby the monthly pension paid to the petitioner, who is a former Vice-Chancellor of the University, was kept in abeyance from the month of January, 2024 until further order in pursuance of the decision of the 116 th Board of Management of the University dated 28.11.2023 vide Resolution No. B.116/2023/6/1.4. 3. The other challenge made is against the communication under No. F.14-A/26(E)/3881 dated 29.02.2024, issued in response to the communications of the petitioner dated 08.02.2024 and 11.02.2024, by which the petitioner sought for reasons of keeping his monthly pension in abeyance. In the aforesaid communication issued by the Registrar (Acting), Tezpur University, it was intimated the petitioner that the Finance Committee of the University in its meeting held on 20.11.2023 discussed the matter of admissibility of monthly pension/family pension in respect of the petitioner and in the meeting, said Committee observed that the pension is admissible only for those employees appointed in substantive basis, who joined prior to 01.01.2004 and governed under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 4. By the aforesaid communication, it is also intimated that the post of Vice- Chancellor at Tezpur University is a tenure post and it was observed that the pension/family pension is not admissible to the incumbents appointed in such tenure post. It is further revealed that on the basis such observation after a threadbare discussion, the Finance Committee resolved to take legal opinion and thereafter decided to send the matter to the UGC/MoE for necessary directives and till a final directive is issued by UGC/Ministry of Education, the payment of pension/family pension to the petitioner is to be kept in abeyance. 5. 5. From the aforesaid, it is clear that a issue was raised by the Competent Authority as regards the entitlement of the petitioner for payment of pension on two counts, firstly, employees who joined their services on substantive basis prior to 01.01.2004 and governed under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, are only entitled for pension and that the persons who are appointed to the tenure post, are not entitled for such pension. On the basis of such observation and issue, threadbare decision was carried out in the meeting in question and accordingly, a resolution was taken to take legal opinion and thereafter, the matter be sent to the Competent Authority i.e., UGC and MoE for necessary directives. 6. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear that the admissibility of payment of pension to the petitioner has not yet been decided rather it is a process of decision making and as an interim measure, the pension of the petitioner was kept in abeyance till such directive is issued by the UGC/MoE. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was paid pension w.e.f. October, 2006 and it is an admitted position that rightly or wrongly, the petitioner has continuously been paid pension since then. It is also an admitted position that as on date, the issue as regards the admissibility of payment of pension to the petitioner as recorded hereinabove has not yet been finalised and no direction has been issued as regards admissibility of such pension. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that until such decision is taken, when the petitioner is continued to be paid pension, such pension could not have been stopped in the midway that too without giving an opportunity of hearing and principle of natural justice. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent authority shall continue to pay the pension and arrear thereof to the petitioner till a decision in this regard is taken by the Competent Authority, subject to issuance of an indemnity bond by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent authority shall continue to pay the pension and arrear thereof to the petitioner till a decision in this regard is taken by the Competent Authority, subject to issuance of an indemnity bond by the petitioner. 9. While passing the aforesaid direction, this Court has also taken note of the communication dated 27.07.2005 issued by the Registrar, Tezpur University to the Registrar, Assam Agricultural University (previous employer of the petitioner), whereby it was disclosed that Tezpur University has accepted the past service of the petitioner at Assam Agricultural University for the purpose of the pensionary benefit. 10. It is needless to say that this order should not be treated as a comment on the entitlement and/or admissibility of payment of pension to the petitioner inasmuch as admittedly the communication dated 29.02.2024 reflects that the authority is yet to take decision in this regard. The authority will be at liberty to take decision on its own merit without being influenced by any observations made in this order. 11. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.