Writ petition filed by a retired Education Teacher challenging orders denying selection grade due to alleged excess increment. Court held eligibility is a right after 10 years and recovery from retired employees is barred.
Writ Petition allowed; Selection Grade granted to petitioner; Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No. 22860 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.07.2024
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.22860 of 2015 and M.P.No.2 of 2015
V.Manoharan(Deceased)
(P2 to P4 are substituted as LRs of Deceased plaintiff as per Order dated 25.07.2024 in W.M.P.No.22194 of 2024 in W.P.No.22860 of 2015] … Petitioners
Vs
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
1/8
W.P.No. 22860 of 2015
all the relevant records relating to the impugned proceedings in Oo.Mu.No.3811/A3/2012 dated 28.07.2012, and its consequential impugned proceedings A.thi.Mu.No.6356/A3/12 dated 26.10.2012 and A.thi. Mu.No.1184/A3/13 dated 28.02.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and quash the same as arbitrary, unreasonable, improper, illegal, being violative of rules and regulations and the principles of natural justice and thereby directing the respondents to grant Selection Grade to the petitioner in the cadre of B.T. Assistant w.e.f 19.06.2012 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits without insisting the petitioner to repay the 3rd incentive increment amount within the time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajendiran : For Respondents Ms.Rajarajeswari Government Advocate
ORDER
This is a case where the petitioner's movement to the selection
grade has been denied stating that he has received one increment in excess of the recognized two increments.
2/8
W.P.No. 22860 of 2015
Education Teacher under the respondent-Department on 05.11.1984. He was thereafter promoted as B.T.Assistant (History) on 19.06.2002 and after putting 28 years of service, he had demitted office on 30.06.2012. The petitioner would submit that when he was working as P.T teacher which is equivalent to the secondary grade teacher, he had been granted the first increment with effect from 01.07.1989 after he had attained the higher qualification of M.P.Ed. Thereafter, while he was working as B.T.Assistant Teacher, he was awarded the second increment with effect from 19.06.2002 for obtaining a Master's degree. Thereafter, as he had acquired qualification of M.Ed in the year 1988, the third increment was also granted to him with effect
from 19.06.2002 as per G.O.Ms.No.1023 dated 09.12.1993.
W.P.No. 22860 of 2015
petitioner's request was also forwarded and recommended by the School to the 3rd respondent-Department. However, instead of approving the said proposal and granting the selection grade, the third respondent had issued the impugned proceedings dated 28.07.2012
stating that as per G.O.Ms.Nos.1023 and 1024 dated 09.12.1993, only two increments could be granted and the 3rd increment granted for M.Ed qualification has been cancelled and the excess amount which was calculated had to be paid to the Government account. In the consequential impugned proceedings dated 26.10.2012 and 28.02.2014, it is stated that only after such excess amounts are remitted into the Government account that the claim of the petitioner to the selection grade would be considered. It is aggrieved by these orders that the petitioner is before this Court.
directed to pay the excess amount. In the impugned orders dated 26.10.2012 and 28.02.2014, the petitioner was informed by the third 4/8
W.P.No. 22860 of 2015
respondent that his request for the selection grade would be considered only after the amounts received under the 3rd increment were deposited into the Government account.
to be granted the selection grade. The eligibility to a selection grade does not rest on the discretion of the authority but is a right to which the employee is entitled to as he completes 10 years of service in the same cadre. The respondents have committed a grave error by not recognizing the 10 years of service put in by the petitioner and using it 5/8
W.P.No. 22860 of 2015
to arm-twist the petitioner into paying the alleged excess amount paid to him. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2012 and the respondents, knowing fully well that they cannot recover the amount, are using the petitioner's request to force him to remit the same. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment reported in AIR 2015 SCC 696 [State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others], has clearly observed in paragraph 18(ii) that recoveries cannot be made from the retired employees or the employees who are due to retire within one year from the order of recovery. The petitioner, having retired as early as in the year 2012, the respondents cannot seek to recover the said amount from the petitioner. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.07.2024
6/8
W.P.No. 22860 of 2015
Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No srn
To
7/8
W.P.No. 22860 of 2015
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
W.P.No.22860 of 2015 and M.P.No.2 of 2015
25.07.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired employee is entitled to selection grade without being forced to repay alleged excess increment amounts.
Whether recovery of excess amounts can be made from a retired employee who is outside the recovery timeline recognized by the Supreme Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq MasihReferred¶43
AIR 2015 SCC 696 [State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others] · Who else cites this
M. Manoharan (Deceased) and others
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department
The Director of School Education
The Chief Education Officer, Vellore District
P.T. Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
