Madras High Court
The District Educational Officer vs Dr.L.Rajendran on 8 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1343 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1343 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5579 of 2021
The District Educational Officer,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Dr.L.Rajendran
2.The Principal Accountant General
Office of the Accountant General,
261, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018.
3.The Secretary,
S.M.S.V. Higher Secondary School,
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act,
praying to set aside the order dated 03.09.2019 passed in W.P.
(MD).No.14302 of 2012 and dismiss the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.A.(MD)No.1343 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.R.Baskaran
Standing Counsel for Government
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.E.V.N.Siva
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.R.Gunasekaran
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
With the consent on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up
for disposal.
2.Heard Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel for the
Government appearing for the appellant, Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned
Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.R.Gunasekaran,
learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3.This appeal by the District Educational Officer is directed
against the order dated 03.09.2019 in W.P.(MD).No.14302 of 2012.
4.The District Educational Officer, Devakottai, who was the
second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant before us.
The first respondent / writ petitioner prayed for issuance of a Writ
of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the third
respondent management dated 21.02.2008 and for a consequential
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1343 of 2021
direction to refund a sum of Rs.1,11,824/- with interest. The said
amount was alleged to be excess payment made to the first
respondent / writ petitioner, by way of an increment for possessing
higher educational qualification.
5.It is not in dispute that at the time when the first
respondent was appointed, the position which prevailed was that
incentive increment was eligible to be paid even to persons who
enter service with higher qualification. The Government took a
policy decision in the year 1995 and issued G.O.Ms.No.860,
Education, Science & Technology Department dated 08.11.1995,
withdrawing the scheme of incentive increment. This resulted in
recovery of the excess amount paid which was at the rate of
Rs.120/- Per month. When the respondent / writ petitioner
resigned from service, the said amount was deducted from his
retirement benefits. Therefore, he filed a writ petition.
6.The learned Single Bench took note of the Government
orders which were prevalent on the date of appointment namely,
G.O.Ms.No.745 (Education Department) dated 04.06.1990 and held
that it gives an indication that advance increment for teachers
having higher qualification at the time of appointment is payable.
Further, the learned Single Bench took note of the decision of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1343 of 2021
Division Bench which confirmed the position that every teacher is
entitled to get incentive increment for having higher qualification
at the time of appointment.
7.In our considered view, such a broad proposition need not
be laid down in the present proceedings because, we are only
concerned as to whether the incentive increment was rightly paid
to the first respondent / writ petitioner or not. Therefore, the said
finding rendered by the learned Single Bench on a general
proposition stands vacated and the legal issue is left open.
However, we are satisfied that the learned Single Bench rightly
granted the relief sought for by the petitioner and the appellant has
not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Bench.
8.Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned Counsel appearing for the first
respondent / writ petitioner submitted that pursuant to the
directions issued in the impugned order, the amount of Rs.
1,11,824/- has already been re-credited to the first respondent /
writ petitioner's account but the interest has not been paid. Since,
the amount at the rate of Rs.120/- per month was paid to the
respondent / writ petitioner by the department by taking note of
the various Government Orders which were prevalent at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1343 of 2021
relevant point of time and in the absence of any material to show
that the respondent/ writ petitioner has mislead the department
and obtained the benefit of incentive increment, we are of the view
that the amount which was recovered and subsequently repaid
after the order passed in the writ petition should carry interest.
However, we are of the view that the reasonable rate of interest
shall be 4% instead of 8% as ordered by the Hon'ble Single Bench.
9.In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part, confirming
the finding of the learned Writ Court that the respondent / writ
petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.1,11,824/- which has already
been refunded. However, the rate of interest is reduced to 4% from
22.02.2008, till the date on which the amount was refunded to the
respondent / writ petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
08.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1343 of 2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The District Educational Officer,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1343 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM., J.
and
S.ANANTHI., J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1343 of 2021
08.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
