IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 17-06-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.20496 of 2006 (O.A.No.7476 of 1995) Sundararaj Manoraj .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Collectorate Office Campus, Kokkarakulam, Tirunelveli-9. 2.The Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents. Prayer:This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.678/A/95, dated 9.10.1995 and quash the same as null and void consequently, directing the respondents to pay the sanctioned incentive increments entitled by the applicant without any interruption. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Shanmugham For Respondents : Mr.T.Sreenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.678/A/95, dated 9.10.1995, and to quash the same
2. The petitioner has submitted that he has been working as a post graduate teacher in the second respondent school, having acquired M.Phil Degree in the year 1991. He was awarded incentive increments as per the proceedings of the Director of Education in Rc.No.64784/K2/94, dated 4.1.1994. By the second respondent’s proceedings in Na.Ka.678/A/95, dated 9.10.1995, the increments awarded to the petitioner for the period from 23.12.1993 to 30.9.1995, amounting to Rs.9229/-, is sought to be recovered.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent, for the recovery of the incentive increments given to the petitioner, is arbitrary and invalid in the eye of law. The said proceedings of the second respondent has been issued without giving a show cause notice to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the increments have been given to the petitioner only in accordance with the proceedings issued by the Director of Education in Rc.No.64784/K2/94, dated 4.1.1994, and based on the qualifications possessed by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 9.10.1995, has been stayed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the said interim order is continuing till date.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others (1995 Supp (1) SCC 18) to support his contention that even if the incentive increments were paid to the petitioner, wrongly, it cannot be recovered from him, especially, when a show cause notice had not been issued to him. The incentive increments have not been paid to the petitioner based on his misrepresentation about his qualifications. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the second respondent ordering recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner as incentive increments, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
5. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner has been working as a Post Graduate Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School, Valliyoor. He was promoted from the post of School Assistant to the post of Post Graduate Assistant in English, from 29.10.85. The petitioner had entered service as a School Assistant, on 10.6.65. As he had passed M.Ed. Degree, while he was working as Post Graduate Assistant, he has been sanctioned two advance increments and his pay was fixed at Rs.1950/- per month in the scale of pay of Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950, as per G.O.Ms.No.42, Education, dated 10.1.1969.
6. It has been further stated that the petitioner was wrongly sanctioned two advance increments from 23.12.1993, for his acquiring M.Phil Degree, by the Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Valliyoor. Since the petitioner was wrongly given two advance increments from 23.12.1993, for his acquiring M.Phil Degree, the Head Master, Government Higher Secondary School, Valliyoor, was directed to cancel the 5th and 6th advance increments irregularly sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.
7. It has been further stated that in G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education Science and Technology Department, dated 20.12.1993, the Government had ordered sanction of two advance increments to the Post Graduate teachers for possessing M.Phil/Ph.D/PG/Diploma in teaching of English as on 1.3.1993. Subsequently, by the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.1024, dated 9.12.1993, the advance increments payable for higher qualification have been limited to four for a teacher during his entire service. Therefore, based on the orders of the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, in his proceedings L.Dis.No.8381/C3/95, dated 6.9.95, the Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Valliyoor, by his Order R.C.No.678/A/95, dated 12.10.1995, had cancelled the sanctioning of 5th and 6th advance increments to the petitioner and ordered for the recovery of the amount drawn by him.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order, dated 9.10.1995, issued by the second respondent, ordering recovery of the advance increments paid to the petitioner, cannot be held to be valid, even if it has been wrongly sanctioned, especially, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not induced the respondents to sanction the increments by his misrepresentation. Further, no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner before the impugned order had been passed. It is also found that the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had granted an order of interim stay of the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 9.10.1995, and it has been in force till date. Further, the respondents have not shown sufficient cause or reason to sustain the impugned proceedings ordering recovery of the advance increments paid to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 09.10.1995, is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
csh
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Collectorate Office Campus,
Kokkarakulam, Tirunelveli-9.
2.The Head Master,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District