Judgment : The petitioner in the present writ petition working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Government Adi Dravidar Welfare School, Koilpatti. She was getting incentive increments on account of the higher qualification acquired by her. However, since the degree was obtained under the Open University System granted by the Universities in. Tamil Nadu through their Distance Education Programme, the Government which wanted to regularise, passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.307, School Education (E2) Department, dated 15.12.2000 granting benefit but only prospectively. 2. In view of the same, a recovery was sought to be made from the wages payable to the petitioner on the ground of alleged wrong payment. The petitioner had filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 2556 of 2007 and also got an interim stay in M.P. No. 2702 of 2005 from making any recovery from her salary. 3. Subsequently, the Government itself removed the prospective nature of the earlier Government Order by G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education (E2) Department, dated 17.2.2006. In view of the relief being granted by the Government itself, the writ petition in W.P. No. 2656 of 2005 was disposed of today. 4. In the present writ petition, the first respondent has given a memo dated 3.11.2005 to the petitioner under Rule 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge made against the petitioner was that she had filed a writ petition and obtained an order of interim stay against the Special Tahsildar, Adidravidar Welfare, from making any recovery from her salary and inspite of working as a Government Servant, she did not seek, prior permission and did not observe the rules before the filing the writ petition. 5. The petitioner had sent a representation dated 29.11.2005. However, notwithstanding her explanation, the first respondent had passed the impugned order dated 19.5.2006 by imposing a fine of withholding her increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. The impugned order which is in Tamil if freely translated, read as follows: "The petitioners explanation was that in order to get justice she went to the High Court and even in that situation, she had applied for permission before the Special Tahsildar, Adidravidar Welfare, Koilpatti and only thereafter, she went to the High Court and obtained an interim order and the order was only to get hack the monetary benefits. She had also stated that such things will not recur in future. She had also stated that such things will not recur in future. Her explanation was not acceptable. The petitioners action is going to the High Court without respect to the higher officers and getting prior permission, cannot be accepted." 6. Under any circumstances, such a conduct on the part of the first respondent is highly reprehensible. There is no rule by which the prior permission from the higher official should be obtained for approaching the Court of law for redressing the grievance of a Government servant. Going to the Court is not an affront to the higher officers. Though this Court is not inclined to take any contempt proceedings, however the first respondent by issuing a memo and inspite of on submissive explanation by imposing a penalty will really amount to interfering with the Court of justice. The first respondent had not shown any rule or regulation which require prior permission to approach a Constitutional Court. His attempt is to browbeat a poor teacher from vindicating her rights in a Court of law. If such actions are allowed without a check, it will lower the majesty of this Court in granting relief to citizens of this Country. 7. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is personally directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/-to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order and sent compliance report to this Court. No costs. Petition allowed.