WP/26830/2023 of K.KARUNAKARAN Vs THE BRANCH OFFICER on 26 October 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 8th April, 2022. The issue is in respect of incentive increment for securing M.Ed. Degree.

2. The learned petitioner’s counsel would very much contend that though in G.O.Ms.No.1023, Education Department dated 09.12.1993, M.Ed., qualification was considered to be eligible for two advance increments, subsequently in G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education, Science & Technology Department dated 20.12.1993, cut-off date was fixed that the incentive increment shall be given only to those who possess the said higher qualification as on 01.03.1993 and this concession will not be extended in future. It is the specific contention of the learned petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner secured his M.Ed. Degree during 1999 and that the certificate was issued to him in January, 2001. But in G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated 10.10.2006, the cut-off date, namely, 01.03.1993 was removed. Therefore, it is his contention that notwithstanding the date of his qualification in 1999, he is entitled for the incentive increment.

3. But, however, the said contention was totally objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The learned Additional Government Pleader relies upon the Full Bench decision in W.P.Nos.27261 of 2019 etc., batch dated 11.06.2026 (S.Kalaiselvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai and others) and would contend that as per G.O.Ms.No.95, Human Resources Management Department dated 26.10.2023, the petitioner is not entitled to have the incentive increment for securing higher qualification and hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and also perused the materials placed on record.

5. While looking into the impugned order dated 8th April, 2022, the 1st respondent has requested the 4th respondent to issue show cause notice to the petitioner for recovery of the amount paid beyond his entitlement from the pension amount. While looking into the above impugned order, so far, the respondents have not issued any recovery order and this is only an instruction issued by the 1st respondent to follow the due procedure before effecting recovery.

6. In order to decide the above aspect, it is relevant to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to have the incentive increment for securing M.Ed. Degree?

7. According to the G.O.Ms.No.1023 dated 09.12.1993, the incentive increment for M.Ed., qualification was granted to those who possessed the M.Ed., qualification as on 09.12.1993. However, in the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 20.12.1993, the date, namely, 09.12.1993 was preponed to 01.03.1993. But, immediately thereafter, in G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 10.10.2006, the cut-off date (01.03.1993) was removed. Now the contention of the petitioner is that since the cut-off date (01.03.1993) is removed, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner secured the M.Ed., Degree during 1999, he is entitled to have the incentive increment.

8. However, this Court is not in a position to agree with the contention of the learned petitioner’s counsel for the simple reason that even as per G.O.Ms.No.1023 dated 09.12.1993, the incentive increment was sanctioned only to those teachers who secured the M.Ed. Degree as on 09.12.1993. Though subsequently the cut-off date so fixed was preponed to 01.03.1993, during 2006, such cut-off date was removed. Therefore, it is amply clear that those persons who got the qualification of M.Ed., as on 09.12.1993 alone are eligible to have the incentive increment. Admittedly, the petitioner secured his M.Ed. Degree only during 1999. But in spite of that, when the petitioner was sanctioned with the incentive increment, now that in the impugned order dated 8th April, 2022, the first respondent has found such mistake and directed the Department to issue show cause notice to the petitioner for recovery.

9. However, now one another point to be decided is whether at this length of time, the respondents can be permitted to proceed with the recovery. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that even according to the respondents, it is not their defence that based upon any false representation or submission of false record, the petitioner had availed such incentive increment. It was only an administrative lapse on the part of the respondent Department for having sanctioned such an amount to the petitioner for more than 10 years. After a lapse of 10 years, if any recovery is effected, it would definitely impinge upon the right to life of the petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), AIR 2015 SC 696. As per the above ratio, the question of recovery from the petitioner, who is the pensioner at this length of time cannot be allowed to be permitted. Therefore, this Court, while looking into the impugned order dated 8th April, 2022, finds that it does not reflect any re-fixation and it only directs the 4th respondent to issue a show cause notice only with reference to the recovery. In such view of the above communication, this Court finds justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 8th April, 2022.

10. Hence, in view of the above detailed discussion, the impugned order dated 8th April, 2022 is set aside. However, it is made clear that such interference of the order dated 08.04.2022 does not militate the re-fixation that had already been done by the 1st respondent, on the premise that the petitioner is not entitled to have the incentive increment for securing the M.Ed. Degree during 1999. At this juncture, the learned petitioner’s counsel submitted that so far, the respondents have recovered substantial amount. If any amount is recovered from the petitioner on account of the above show cause notice, the respondent Department is directed to repay the same to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 26-10-2026 Index:Yes Speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes ss To

1. The Branch Officer O/o The Principal Accountant General (A&E) No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai 600 018

2. The Chief Educational Officer Cuddalore District, Cuddalore

3. The District Educational Officer Cuddalore District, Cuddalore

4. The Head Master Government High School Palayankottai, Kattumannarkoil Taluk Cuddalore District 608 701

C.KUMARAPPAN J. ss WP No. 26830 of 2023 26-10-2026