Madras High Court
The Block Educational Officer – 2 vs T.Mohandass on 18 September, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.(MD) No.1576 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.A.(MD)No.1576 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.12318 of 2024
The Block Educational Officer – 2,
Guziliamparai Union,
Dindigul District. ... Appellant
-vs-
T.Mohandass ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order,
dated 18.04.2024, passed in W.P.(MD)No.9519 of 2024.
For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Jerin Mathew
for Mr.E.Ilango
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1576 of 2024
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
This appeal is by the Department. The challenge is to the order of the
Writ Court, dated 18.04.2024, made in W.P.(MD)No.9519 of 2024, wherein the
Writ Court quashed the proceedings of the appellant, dated 26.03.2024, in and by
which, the Block Educational Officer – 2, Guziliamparai Union, Dindigul
District, had directed recovery of a sum of Rs.2,93,331/- paid to the respondent /
petitioner upon sanction of incentive increment to him for acquiring the
Postgraduate Degree in History.
2. The respondent/petitioner, who joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher
and subsequently obtained a B.A. qualification, was granted one set of incentive
increments [two normal increments]. Thereafter, he completed M.A. Tamil on
03.01.2018. He applied for the sanction of one additional set of incentive
increments, which was approved on 16.04.2020. He was also paid the salary
calculated based on the incentive increment till the impugned order came to be
passed on 26.03.2024. The grant of the incentive increment was deemed irregular
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
based on G.O.(Ms)No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV)
Department, dated 10.03.2020, which withdrew the entire scheme of incentive
increments.
3. The Writ Court took note of the fact that this Court had held that both
G.O.(Ms)No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department,
dated 10.03.2020 and G.O.(Ms)No.95, Human Resources Management (FR-IV)
Department, dated 26.10.2023, which deal with incentive increments are only
prospective and cannot be made applicable retrospectively to the persons, who
had acquired qualifications prior to the date of the Government Orders. In G.O.
(Ms)No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated
15.10.2020, which seeks to clarify G.O.(Ms)No.37, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020, it has been specifically stated
that the Government Servants, who have acquired higher qualification prior to the
date of issue of G.O.(Ms)No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV)
Department, i.e., 10.03.2020 and those who have not applied for sanction of
advance increment, may be examined separately as per Paragraph 6(vi) of the
Government Order read above.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. This Court, had, in W.A.(MD)No.1052 of 2024, dated 21.06.2024
[The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School
Education and others vs. A.Govindasamy and others] held that operation of
G.O.(Ms)No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department,
dated 10.03.2020, will only be prospective and a portion of Clause 6(vi) of the
said Government Order, which requires sanction of the Finance Department, has
been quashed by this Court.
5. In the light of the above, we find that the Writ Court was justified in
quashing the order, directing recovery of the incentive increments. The order of
the Writ Court is in tune with the language and tenor of the Government Orders
as well as the earlier pronouncement of this Court referred to supra. Hence, we
see no merit in the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
6. At this juncture, Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government
Pleader points out that the last sentence in Paragraph 11 of the order impugned in
the Writ Appeal, which reads as follows:-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
''The respondent is directed to revoke the incentive increment of the
petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.''
He argues that the wording ''revoke'' in the above said sentence, implies that the
granted incentive increment is to be revoked.
7. It appears to be a typographical error; it should be read as ''re-work''
instead of ''revoke''.
NCC : No [R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
Index : No 18.09.2024
smn2
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
smn2
and
18.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
