Madras High Court
T.Justin Prabhu vs The Secretary To Government on 28 May, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 30.04.2025
Pronounced on : 28.05.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.5338, 5340, 5342, 5344, 5343, 5347, 5354, 5336, 5353,
5360, 5351 of 2025
W.A.(MD)No.792 of 2025
T.Justin Prabhu ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.85 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.793 of 2025
M.Hemalatha ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.86 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.794 of 2025
S.Usha ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.87 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.795 of 2025
C.Shivakkumaar ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
4/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.88 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.796 of 2025
G.Rajakumari ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
5/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.89 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.797 of 2025
C.Reema ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
6/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.90 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2025
R.Latha Selvabai ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
7/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.91 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.799 of 2025
K.Senthil Vadivelan ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
8/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.92 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.800 of 2025
A.Jenanthul Firthous ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
9/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.98 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.801 of 2025
M.Shanmugasundaram ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
10/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.99 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.802 of 2025
A.G.Sivaraj ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
11/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.101 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this
Court and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.803 of 2025
M.Harihara Krishnan ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
12/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.102 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this
Court and allow the present writ appeal.
W.A.(MD)No.329 of 2025
S.Robert Kennedy ... Appellant / Review Applicant
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents/ Respondents
13/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside in so far as 50% recovery is concerned the order passed in
Rev.Aplw.(MD)No.100 of 2024 dated 06.06.2024 on the file of this
Court and allow the present writ appeal.
(In all writ appeals)
For Appellants : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For Respondents : Mr.V.Omprakash
Government Advocate
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
These writ appeals are preferred against the common order passed
by the learned Single Judge dismissing the review application of the
appellant / review applicant seeking to set aside the order in so far as
50% recovery is concerned.
2.The appellants filed writ petitions with a prayer to quash the
order, dated 11.06.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential
order dated 28.06.20216 passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of
recovery of incentive increment paid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
3. The learned Single Judge after considering the fact partially
modified the impugned order and directed to recover 50% of the amount
paid from the 2003 to 2012 and to grant the benefit of incentive
increment from 18.01.2013 and also to refix the consequential
pensionary benefit.
4. Being aggrieved over the same, the writ petitioners filed Review
Applications Rev.Apl W.(MD)Nos.85 to 92 and 98 to 102 of 2024
seeking to review the order, dated 26.09.2022, passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.
15231 of 2016 etc., batch in so far as 50% recovery and re-fixation are
concerned. The learned Single Judge after considering the fact declines
to entertain the review applications and dismissed all the review
applications.
5.Aggrieved by the common order passed in all review
applications by the learned Single Judge , these writ appeals are filed on
the following among other grounds :-
a.The Government issued order in G.O.(1D).No.18
School Education dated 18.01.2013, sanctioning the Incentive
increment for M.Phil., and Ph.D.,. That be so, the same cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
override by the proceedings or letter. But the Government letter
No.129 dated 17.07.2013 was issued by overriding the
Government order and the same is impermissible. Hence, the
order of the learned Judge is liable to be
b.The learned Judge passed the order only on the basis
of the Government Letter No.129 dated 17.07.2013. The letter
was quashed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(MD)No.9563 of
2014 dated 03.09.2021 and the same was upheld by the
Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.94 of 2022 dated 11.02.2022.
Hence, the order of the learned Judge is liable to be
c.The appellants are entitled to get all the benefits as per
the Government order as well as the decision of the Hon'ble
Court and the same was not considered. Hence, the order of
the learned Judge is liable to be set aside in so far as 50%
recovery is concerned.
d)The incentive increment was granted and there is no
dispute about the eligibility and other criteria. There is no
misrepresentation on the part of the appellants. Therefore, the
order of recovery is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to
be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
e)As per the Government order incentive increment has
to be given from the day following the last day of the
examination. Therefore, there is no illegality in sanctioning the
incentive increment to the appellants from the date of passing
of the higher qualification. Hence, the order of the learned
Judge is liable to be set aside.
f)The authorities accepted the eligibility of the
appellants and there is no illegality in sanctioning the
incentive increment. Now they raised objection on the basis of
the Letter No.129 dated 17.07.2013 that the appellants are
eligible to get the incentive increment only from the date of
Government Order. The issue is settled by this Hon'ble Court in
several decisions that the letter cannot override the
Government Order. The letter was set aside by this Hon'ble
Court and recovery was also set aside and the issue is covered
by decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench. Hence, the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
g)The learned Judge accepted the case of the appellants
and set aside the impugned order of recovery in part i.e., 50%.
That be so, direction to recover the 50% amount is totally in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
contradiction and liable to be set aside.
f)The scheme of incentive increment for teachers
introduced the year 1969 in G.O.Ms.No.42 Education
Department dated 10.01.1969. The Government Order is very
clear that the incentive increment may be given from the day
following the last day of the examination in higher
qualification. It is made clear that the entitlement is from the
date of degree. The same was not considered. Hence, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.”
Therefore, prayed to set aside in so far as 50% recovery is
concerned, the common order in batch of review applications dated
06.06.2024 and allow these Writ Appeals.
6. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
7.The petitioners were awarded with second incentive increments
for possessing an M.phil., degree as per G.O(MS)No.18 dated:
18.01.2013. They were drawing pay, including the incentive increment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
from the day following the last date of examination as per the terms of
Fundamental Rule 26 which provides that a Government servant is
entitled to an incentive increment from the day following the last day of
examination of degree and that a Government servants deemed to have
acquired a degree from the day following the last date of examination
which he had passed.
8. However the Government in a clarification letter bearing No.129
dated 17.07.2013, stated that the second incentive increment should be
payable only on or from 18.01.2013.
9. Based on the clarification latter, the writ petitioners were
directed to refund the incentive increment paid from the earlier period,
against which the aggrieved persons filed writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.
13832, 15229 to 15233 and 15235 to 15241 of 2016 and in the writ
petitions the learned single Judge modified the recovery order partially
by directing the respondents to recover for 50% and waived the balance
50% against which the review petitions were filed by the petitioners and
the same was dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
10. The petitioners submitted that the authority had accepted the
eligibility and sanctioned the incentive increment, there is no
misrepresentation on the part of the appellants. Now, the respondents has
raised objection based on the letter No.129 dated 17.07.2013 stating that
the petitioners are entitled to receive the incentive increment only from
the date of the Government Order viz., 18.01.2013. the Government
latter overriding the Government Order in G.O (1D) No. 18 School
Education dated: 18.01.2013 the same is impermissible and the order of
the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside.
11. In this connection the petitioners referred earlier judgement in
W.P.No.9563 of 2014 dated 03.09.2021, in which, the learned Single
Judge quashed the Government letter No.129 dated: 17.07.2013.
12. In the above Judgment the learned Single Judge referred the
judgment in Nand Kishore Sharma and Others vs. State of Bihar and
Others reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 722, in which, the Apex Court
considering the question of recovery of amount paid by mistake, it was
observed:-
“2.....but at the same time, we are of the view that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
the appellant cannot be blamed. The anomaly
committee recommended grant of higher pay
scale to them. The finance department also
concurred with the same and as a result,
thereafter the appellants were given the pay
scales and were disbursed the arrears as a lump
sum. Having paid arrears to the appellants, the
state government could not have reversed the
same without complying the rules of natural
justice.....”
(emphasis added)
12.5. In (2001) 2 SCC 186..(E.S.p. Rajaram and others
versus union of India and others) while negativing the
claim regarding entitlement of higher elements, the
Supreme Court observed:-
“23.... Howe in our considered view, it will be
just unfair to clarify that any amount drawn by
such employees either in the basic post(traffic
apprentice) or in a promotional post will not be
required to be refunded by the employee concern
as a consequence of judgement. This position
also follows as a necessary corollary from the
observation made by this court in para eight of
judgement in M.Bhaskar case.”
12.6 Similar view is expressed by the Supreme Court in
(2007) 6SCC 180-Babu Lal Jain versus State of MP and by
the Madras High Court in 2006 (1) MLJ 143
palavesamuthu vs Tamil Nadu administrative tribunal.
13. On a perusal of these decisions, it is apparent that
where excess payment is made not on account of any
erroneous representation of the employee, but on the basis
of error committed by the authorities, the Supreme Court
has invariably directed that recovery need not be made.
14. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that the
present appellant had made any misrepresentation in the
matter. Since the amount had already been paid and
obviously spent by the appellant thinking that she was
entitled to such amount, it would cause undue hardship if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
at a distant point of time such amount is recovered.
13. The learned Single Judge therefore held in para 4 and 5 of the
judgment that,
“4.... the appellant therein is entitled to get incentive
increment for having entered into service with higher
qualification, the petitioner in the present petition is
also entitled to succeed. The Hon’ble Division
Bench, after considering the object behind the grant
of incentive increment to the teachers for acquiring
higher qualification, as specifically held that if the
incentive increment was granted to a lower qualified
persons for acquiring higher qualification after
entering into service. Such incentive increment
should be granted to a person who possessed higher
qualification at the time of appointment.
5. The petitioner, who had M.Sc., and M.Phil.,
at the time of entry into service, is also entitled to
incentive increment. Hence, this writ petition is
allowed as prayed for. The impugned order of the
first respondent Lr.No.129 School Education
(Paka5(2)2013-1, dated 17.07.2013 and consequent
impugned order of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.
4797/A3/2013 dated 16.07.2013, are quashed. The
respondents are directed to fix the pay and increment
of the petitioner, taking into account the higher
qualification acquired by the petitioner from the date
of her joining as B.T Assistant ie., on 23.03.2007.”
14. Subsequently, in another W.P.No.2912 of 2016, the learned
Single Judge in his order dated: 09.01.2023 quashed the Government
letter No.129 dated 17.07.2013, with the following observation:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
'6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
when the Government Order in G.O.(1D).No.18 provides for
grant of second incentive increment for possessing higher
educational qualification, the same cannot be taken away by
way of clarification through a letter.
7. I find some force in the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners. F.R.26 Ruling 2 reads as follows:-
“ (2) In cases where the passing of an examination
or test confers on a Government servant the title to
any right, benefit or concession, such title should be
deemed to have accrued on the day following the
last day of the examination or test which he passed.
In cases where the examination or test can be
passed in installments, the title to the right, benefit
or concession will be deemed to have accrued on
the day following the last day of the examination in
the subject or subjects in which he has passed. ”
8. What has been ordered in G.O.(1D).No.18, cannot be given
a go~by by way of clarification and the object of the
Government Order, cannot be watered down through a letter.
As a matter of fact, G.O.(1D).No.18 is in the mode of an
amendment to an earlier G.O.Ms.No.1024 School Education
Department dated 09.12.1993 wherein, the higher
educational qualification of M.Phil and Ph.D were inserted
along with M.Ed. Thus, the very reasoning given by the
respondents in the impugned order that G.O.(1D).No.18 will
have only a prospective effect, cannot be sustained, in view of
the fact that this Government Order is only an expansion of
the earlier existing G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 09.12.1993. Even
otherwise, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, a Government Letter cannot overrule the
Government Order. As such, the impugned order itself cannot
be sustained.'
15. The petitioner further referred the judgement in W.P.No.9027
of 2015 dated.02.08.2024. In the above writ petition deals with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
similar issue and held that;
14. From a reading of the above counter as well as the
portion of the Government Order, wherein, it has been set out
that the benefit of incentive increment to M.Phil., and Ph.D.,
was being made in consideration of the long pending demand/
request, would indicate that the above G.O. itself was to
remove an anomaly and clarificatory. That being the case,
there is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the restriction of the benefit only from the
date of issuance of G.O(1D)No.18 dated 18.01.2013 instead
of from the day following the last day of examination may not
be valid.
15. Yet another reason why the impugned letter is illegal is
also in view of the fact that any attempt at curtailing the
benefit conferred by G.O(1D)No.18 by granting the same only
from the date of the said G.O and not from the day following
the last day of passing examination which entitles the
candidate to benefit of increment would be contrary to Rule
26 of the Fundamental Rules of the Government of Tamil
Nadu, which as seen supra provides in cases where the
passing of an examination or test confers on a Government
servant the title to any right, benefit or concession, such title
should be deemed to have accrued on the day following the
last day of the examination or test which he passed.
16. It is trite law that a benefit conferred by a Government
Order cannot be curtailed / whittled down / impaired by a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
letter. In view thereof the impugned letter dated 17.07.2023,
insofar as it curtails the benefit of second incentive only from
the date of the above G.O. instead of granting the benefit from
the day following the last day of the examination in terms of
Rule 26 of the Fundamental Rules of the Government of Tamil
Nadu is thus set aside. In view thereof, the recovery
proceeding also cannot be sustained and consequently set
aside.
The learned Judge set aside the Government letter dated 17.07.2013.
16. The Government letter No.129 dated 17.07.2013 has already
been quashed, much prior to the present judgment against which
Government preferred an appeal in W.A(MD)No.94 of 2022, that was
also dismissed, confirmed the order of the Single Judge. Once the Court
quash the clarification letter No.129, an order illegal, that order becomes
void and non-existent in the eyes of law. The Government did not filed
any second appeal, it implies acceptance and the quashed order cannot be
reviewed or relied upon. Once the Court set aside the Government order,
it becomes null and void, it is treated as if it never existed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
17. Therefore the subsequent order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P(MD)Nos. 13832, 15229 to 15233 and 15235 to 15241 of
2016, directing the officials for recovery of 50% based on the
Government letter No.129 dated 17.07.2013, which has already been
quashed is not proper and liable to be set aside.
18.Accordingly, we set aside the order passed in the review
applications in Rev.Aplw.(MD)Nos.85 to 92 and 98 to 102 of 2024 and
the writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.J., J.) & (R.P., J.)
28.05.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Rm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
Office of the Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Zonal Accounts Officer (Audits)
School Educational Department,
Madurai – 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
rm
W.A (MD)Nos.792 to 803 & 329 of 2025
28.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/05/2025 05:19:46 pm )
