Allowed

P.Chandrasekar v. The Director of Elementary Education

Madras HC3 Oct 2024WP(MD)/15970/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Madras High Court Bench allowed a writ petition challenging a recovery order for excess incentive increments linked to B.Ed. qualification. Citing settled law from a recent Division Bench judgment and the Supreme Court, the Bench quashed the recovery order as unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the third respondent quashed; writ petition allowed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

P.Chandrasekar Vs The Director of Elementary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.12677 of 2019

P.Chandrasekar

... Petitioner

/Vs./

1.The Director of Elementary Education, Dpi Campus, College Road, Chennai-6.

¶11

2.The Regional Account Officer, (Audit), School Education Department, Madurai.

¶12

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned recovery order in Na.Ka.No.2895 / E1 / 2019 dated 20/05/2019 passed by the 3 rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2019

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gowrishankar For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned recovery order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the third respondent.

¶21

2. Under the impugned order, the third respondent is seeking to recover the excess payments made to the petitioner towards incentive increments paid to him on account of his B.Ed., qualification. The petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that the impugned recovery order is bad in law, as the said recovery cannot be made, when any increment has already been granted to the petitioner.

¶22

3. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 15.02.2024 passed in WA.No.499 of 2024 in the case of The District Elementary Educational Officer, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram and Another vs. V.Prabaavathy ,

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2019

¶26

wherein it has been held following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White

¶27

Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 , that the impugned recovery order is unsustainable. In that decision as well, a similar situation arose and the Division Bench of this Court had quashed the similar impugned recovery order.

¶28

4. In view of the settled law, the impugned order dated 20.05.2019

¶29

passed by the third respondent has to be necessarily quashed and accordingly, the impugned recovery order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the third respondent is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

03.10.2024 Index : Yes / No (3/3) NCC : Yes / No Sm

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2019

¶34

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶35

¶36