Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2084 (MAD)

R. Bhaskar v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, School Education Department

2024-08-23

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2024
ORDER : Abdul Quddhose, J. [PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent issued in O.M.No.2549/A2/2017 dated 08.05.2017 issued by third respondent and quash the same as issue a direction to the respondents to continue to grant the incentive increment for M.Phil and B.Ed., degrees and to grant special grade scale of pay in the post of Physical Education Teacher to the petitioner with arrears of pay.] The petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery order dated 08.05.2017 issued by the third respondent. The third respondent has contended that the advance increments paid to the petitioner has been paid to him by mistake. Hence, they seek recovery of the said amount. 2. The payments made to the petitioner towards advance increments pertain to the year 2008 – 2011. It is now well settled law that any recovery made for a period which is beyond five years is impermissible under law as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court G.O.(Ms)No.37 [Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department] dated 10.03.2020 and in paragraph No.6 of the said Government Order, it is made clear that the advance increments for acquiring higher qualification already granted to Government servants need not be effected any recovery. 4. In the case on hand also increments were paid to the petitioner during the period 2008 – 2011 for acquiring higher educational qualification. In view of the well settled law and G.O.(Ms)No.37 [Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department] dated 10.03.2020, the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 08.05.2017 has to be quashed and the writ petition will have to be allowed. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the third respondent is hereby quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.