Madras High Court
Tmt. S. Umarani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 13 April, 2022
W.A. No. 1068 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE N. MALA
W.A. No. 1068 of 2022
Tmt. S. Umarani ..Appellant
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 24.09.2018 in W.P. No.
10593 of 2016.
For Appellant :: Mr.R. Saseetharan
For Respondents :: Mr.V. Nanmaran
Additional Govt. Pleader
1\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1068 of 2022
JUDGMENT
S. Vaidyanathan,J.
And
N. Mala,J.
The present writ appeal has been preferred as against the order dated
24.09.2018 passed in W.P. No. 10593 of 2016 whereby the plea to quash the
order dated 14.06.2014 was rejected on the ground that the appellant/writ
petitioner had approached the Court after a delay of 6 years as she had
retired from service on 31.07.2010 and the writ petition was filed in 2016.
That apart, the learned Single Judge had observed in paragraph No.5 of the
order that it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit any such application
before the competent authorities, if she is otherwise eligible and it is for the
authorities to consider the same in accordance with the Government Orders
in force.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, apart from
raising other grounds, would contend that the claim for incentive increment
for higher qualification is also a claim of pay fixation and the same is
2\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1068 of 2022
continuous cause of action and it reflects in calculation of pension and
therefore, the same cannot be rejected on the ground of laches and relied on
the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and
Others v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648. He would also rely
on the judgments of this Court in W.A. No. 34 of 2017 rendered on
03.01.2019, W.A. (MD) No. 215 of 2017 dated 26.02.2018 and the order
dated 20.10.2021 in W.P. No. 22141 of 2021 in assailing the order under
challenge.
3. On the other hand, the learned AGP for the respondents would
submit that the question of extending the benefit of incentive increment to
the appellant/writ petitioner does not arise as the Government Order in
G.O.Ms. No. 285 School Education Department dated 28.11.2007 refers to
extension of the benefit of additional incentive increment for M.Phil
qualification to P.G. Teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary
Schools and not to the appellant/writ petitioner, who was serving as Chief
Educational Officer on the date of issuance of the G.O.
3\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1068 of 2022
4. We are not inclined to render any finding on the above
submission made. Since liberty has been given to the authorities to pass
orders, in the event of any application being filed by the appellant/writ
petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as the
learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground
of laches.
5. As far as the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellant in W.A.(MD) No. 215 of 2017 dated 26.02.2018 is concerned, the
same may not be applicable to the facts of this case as it does not pertain to
incentive increment, which the appellant is now seeking. Similarly, the
decision of this Court dated 03.01.2019 in W.A. No. 34 of 2017 may not
apply to the facts of this case. As far as the order dated 20.10.2021 in W.P.
No. 22141 of 2021, which was also relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellant is concerned, in that case, the learned Judge has referred to the
pleadings and directed the respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner therein and there is no finding on merits. As far as the reliance
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is concerned, it was a
4\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1068 of 2022
case of claim for disability pension and the issue that fell for consideration
before the Apex Court was whether the the direction of the High Court to
grant payment of arrears for a period of 16 years instead of restricting it to
three years was justified. The said judgment would not apply to the case of
the appellant/writ petitioner.
6. As far as incentive increment is concerned, as contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, it cannot be construed as a
continuous cause of action. However, if the appellant/writ petitioner is
eligible in terms of the G.O. referred to supra, as observed by the learned
Single Judge, it is open to the authorities to consider the same in accordance
with law. The appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to prefer a representation
to the authority concerned within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be considered and
disposed of by the competent authority within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of such representation.
5\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No. 1068 of 2022
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
N. MALA,J.
nv
7. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (N.M.J.)
nv 13.04.2022
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
W.A.No. 1068 of 2022
6\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
