Partly allowed

T.Selvi v. The Director of Elementary Education

Madras HC25 Apr 2024WP/5837/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders stopping a pensioner's incentive increment and directing recovery of payments made since 2013 due to audit objections. The Court quashed the recovery portion relying on the State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih judgment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Block Educational Officer directing recovery of the incentive payment was quashed.

T.Selvi Vs The Director of Elementary Education — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.5837 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.5837 of 2022 and WMP.No.5928 of 2022

¶7

T. Selvi ... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶10

The District Elementary Educational Officer, Ariyalur 621 704 Ariyalur District.

¶11

The Block Educational Officer, Ariyalur 621 704 Ariyalur District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the 3rd respondent relating to the impugned orders issued by the 3rd respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.223/A-2/2020 dated 16.09.2020 and the consequent order bearing Na.Ka.No.918/A1/2022 dated 28.02.2022 quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyathurai For Respondent : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 5

¶15

W.P.No.5837 of 2022

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the third respondent dated 16.09.2020 and 28.02.2022. The petitioner was granted incentive increment upon obtaining the qualification of M.A.,Economics. However, in view of the audit objections, the increment was ordered to be stopped and payment which were made from the year 2013 were ordered to be recovered.

¶18

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the incentive is concerned, subsequently petitioner has obtained B.A., Tamil and as per the new Rule she will be entitled for one time lumpsum payment. As far as the present incentive is concerned even though it has been reduced the amount cannot be ordered to be recovered. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4363 of 2007 in the case of K.Chithra Vs The Secretary and others and also the other judgments.

¶19

The learned Special Government Pleader relied upon the counter and submitted that when the incentive was erroneously granted to the petitioner the

¶20

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

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

W.P.No.5837 of 2022

¶23

same was ordered to be recovered.

¶24

Be that as it may, when it is seen that the incentive was paid not on any misrepresentation of the petitioner and it was paid from the year 2013, the matter squarely falls within the para 38 Sub Clause 4 of the judgment in the

¶25

case of State of Punjab and Ors., Vs. Rafiq Masih and accordingly no recovery whatsoever can be made. In view thereof, the impugned order shall stand quashed in as much as the order of recovery of the petitioner. No costs.

¶26

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶27

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶28

25.04.2024

¶29

Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order dpq

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 5

¶31

W.P.No.5837 of 2022

¶32

¶33

The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶34

The District Elementary Educational Officer, Ariyalur 621 704 Ariyalur District.

¶35

The Block Educational Officer, Ariyalur 621 704 Ariyalur District.

¶36

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

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

W.P.No.5837 of 2022

¶39

D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶40

dpq

¶41

W.P.No.5837 of 2022 and WMP.No.5928 of 2022

¶42

25.04.2024

¶43

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

¶44

Page 5 of 5

T.Selvi v. The Director of Elementary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Selvi v. The Director of Elementary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ramakrishnan Vs The commissioner

Vanathu Chinnapan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Shanmugam Vs the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.

G.Santhiyappan Vs The District Collector

The President Vs M.Sumathi

The Secretary To Government Vs P Balakrishnan