Dismissed

A.Prema Violet, v. the Assistant Elementary

Madras HC19 Sept 2023WP(MD)/23529/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order requiring recovery of an incentive increment granted upon acquiring a B.Ed. degree. Since the impugned order was withdrawn by the Block Educational Officer following instructions from the Director of Elementary Education, this court dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous because the impugned order was withdrawn; connected petitions closed.

A.Prema Violet, Vs the Assistant Elementary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W. P. (MD) No.23529 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P. (MD) No.23529 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.16892 of 2016 & 15482 of 2023

¶8

A. Prema Violet Secondary Grade Teacher, Panchayat Union Primary School, Vangapalayam, Karur Union,

¶9

Karur District. ...Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Karur Union,

¶12

Karur District. ... Respondent

¶13

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Prayer:

¶16

W. P. (MD) No.23529 of 2016

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 208/A1/2016 dated 07.11.2016 of the respondent herein and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.T. Pon Ramkumar

¶19

For Respondent : Mr. V. Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed against the order of recovery

¶22

of the amount paid to the petitioner towards incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed., degree.

¶23

Heard Mr.T. Pon Ramkumar, learned counsel for the

¶24

petitioner and Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, learned Government Advocate

¶25

appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶26

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W. P. (MD) No.23529 of 2016

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtained B.Ed., degree from Sastra University, Thanjavur, in the year 2009. The respondent granted incentive increment for possessing B.Ed., degree. But subsequently, they issued the impugned proceedings stating that the petitioner is eligible to receive incentive increment only from the date i.e., 28.07.2011 on which date, the G.O.(Ms)No.112, School Education (C2) Department, was issued by the respondent and passed the order for recovery of incentive increment awarded to the petitioner from the date of obtaining B.Ed., decree to till the date of issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.112, School Education (C2) Department, dated 28.07.2011.

¶30

On behalf of the respondent, a counter affidavit has been

¶31

filed.

¶32

During the course of hearing today, the learned Government

¶33

Advocate appearing for the respondent has placed a copy of the affidavit filed by the Director of Elementary Education, Chenai.

¶34

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W. P. (MD) No.23529 of 2016

¶37

Basing on the averments made in the said affidavit, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the Writ Petitioner is entitled to get incentive increment from the date of acquiring additional qualification and as such the Director of Elementary Eduction, Chennai, has instructed the Block Educational Officer, Karur, to take necessary steps to drop audit objections. He further submits that basing on the instructions of the Director of Elementary Education Department, Chennai, the Block Educational Officer, Karur, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.208/A1/2016, dated 30.08.2023, the audit objections have been withdrawn.

¶38

In view of the above factual position, as the order impugned

¶39

in the present Writ Petition has been already withdrawn, in our considered view, no further adjudication is required in this case.

¶40

Accordingly , this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶41

9 . No costs.

¶42

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W. P. (MD) No.23529 of 2016

¶45

10 . Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

¶46

closed.

¶47

19.09.2023

¶48

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No RM To The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Karur Union, Karur District.

¶49

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W. P. (MD) No.23529 of 2016

¶52

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶53

¶54

W.P(MD) No.23529 of 2016

¶55

(3/4)

¶56

19.09.2023

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

A.Prema Violet, v. the Assistant Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Prema Violet, v. the Assistant Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Ramesh, (Conductor, Vs the Managing Director

The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs Sivalingam, S/O.Chinnakannu

The Director of Rural Development Vs Sivalingam.C

G.Ramasamy Vs the Regional Direictor

A.Francis Daniel Raja, Vs the Assistant Elementary

P.Angalaparameswari, Vs the Assistant Elementary