Madras High Court
M.Pandiarani vs The Director Of Elementary School ... on 13 November, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD).No.13681 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.13681 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD) Nos.11522 and 19060 of 2023
M.Pandiarani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of Elementary School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3. The Block Educational Officer – I,
Office of the Block Educational Officer,
Natham Post,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records in pursuant to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in
proceedings Na.Ka.No.427/A1/2023, dated 27.02.2023 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to sanction the all attendant and
retirement benefits within a stipulated time may be fixed by this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.13681 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by a retired Secondary Grade
Teacher, challenging the order of re-fixation of pay as well as recovery.
2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher
on 08.12.2000. While the petitioner had joined the service, she had completed
B.A (Economics) degree. After joining service, the petitioner had passed
M.A(Economics) degree. For these two additional qualifications, two
incentive increments were granted to the writ petitioner with effect from
01.01.2010 onwards. The petitioner was enjoying the higher pay scale till her
voluntary retirement on 31.10.2022.
3. On 27.02.2023, the third respondent has passed an order to recover
the incentive increments paid to the writ petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner has acquired higher qualifications in the subject of Economics,
which is no way connected with the teaching of Secondary Grade Teacher.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Under the impugned order, a sum of Rs.8,44,516/- is sought to be recovered.
In the impugned order, the pay scale of the writ petitioner is sought to be
revised in view of cancellation of two incentive increments for B.A.
(Economics) degree and M.A.(Economics) degree. This order is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner,
the incentive increments were conferred upon the writ petitioner in January
2010 and they were paid up to her retirement in October 2022. The order
impugned in the writ petition having been passed after her retirement, is not
legally sustainable. He further contended that apart from B.A.(Economics)
Degree and M.A.(Economics) degree, the petitioner has also passed
B.A.English and B.Ed., degree. However, the acquisition of the other two
qualifications have not been taken into account by the authorities concerned.
He further contended that the order of recovery is bad in the eye of law, in
view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner has further contended
that after retirement, the question of revising the pay scale from the year 2010
is arbitrary in nature and therefore, sought to quash the orders.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents herein relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.910 of 2022, dated 28.04.2022 and
W.A(MD) No.918 of 2015, dated 17.12.2015 had contended that when a
teacher had acquired higher qualifications which is no way connected with
the subjects which they are teaching, the same is not going to be useful to the
students and therefore, the authorities were right in recalling the order of
granting incentive increments. He further contended that the petitioner is not
falling under either “C” or “D” category and therefore, the recovery order
passed by the third respondent herein may be sustained. Hence, he prayed for
revising the pay scale of the writ petitioner, in view of the cancellation of the
incentive increments already granted to the writ petitioner.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner while working as a Secondary
Grade Teacher was conferred with two incentive increments with effect from
01.01.2010 for acquiring higher qualifications, namely, B.A(Economics)
degree and M.A (Economics) degree. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.(MD) No.910 of 2022, dated 24.08.2022, in paragraph No.13,
has held as follows:
“13. The appellant submitted that the object
of granting incentive increment is to lift the morale
of the teachers. But the government states that the
object of granting incentive increment is to
encourage the Teachers to qualify themselves, so
that their qualification would be beneficial to the
students. In the present case the petitioner was
working as Secondary Grade Teacher taking class
for students from 1 to 5 standards and the
qualification of M.Sc. Physics would not be
beneficial to the students studying in the standards
1 to 5. Therefore, the Government is right in
denying the incentive increment for higher
qualifications when the higher qualification is not
beneficial for the students studying in 1 to 5
standards.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In view of the Division Bench judgment, it is clear that if the teacher
had acquired any higher qualifications which is not in any way relevant to the
subject that are being taught by the concerned teacher, the question of
granting incentive increments would not arise. Therefore, this Court does not
find any illegality or irregularity in the order of cancellation of incentive
increments that were granted to the writ petitioner.
10. The petitioner has been receiving the said incentive increments for
more than 12 years. The petitioner had attained superannuation on
31.10.2022. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in (2015) 4 SCC 334 in the case of (State of Punchab and other Vs. Rafiq
(white washer) and others), the order of recovery passed after retirement
would cause prejudice to the writ petitioner and therefore, this Court is
inclined to quash the impugned order in relation to the order of recovery
alone. However, as far as the portion of the order which refixes the pay scale
of the petitioner pursuant to the cancellation of the incentive increments are
concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the said portion of the said order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. In view of the above said deliberations, this Writ Petition stands
partly allowed and the order of recovery is set aside. However, the authorities
are at liberty to refix the pay scale based upon the impugned order. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions
stand closed.
13.11.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Director of Elementary School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3. The Block Educational Officer – I,
Office of the Block Educational Officer,
Natham Post,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
13.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
