Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
R. Bhaskar - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, School Education Department & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 9717 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 7463 & 7464 of 2017
Decided On : 23-08-2024
RECOVERY - ADVANCE INCREMENTS - The court addressed the legality of recovering advance increments paid to a government employee for higher qualifications, emphasizing that recovery beyond five years is impermissible as per established law and relevant government orders, leading to the quashing of the recovery order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a recovery order issued by the third respondent, which sought to reclaim advance increments paid for M.Phil and B.Ed. degrees, claiming they were paid by mistake. The payments in question were made between 2008 and 2011.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery of payments made beyond five years is not permissible under law, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih. Additionally, a government order clarified that no recovery should be made for advance increments already granted.
Issues: Whether the recovery of advance increments paid for higher qualifications is lawful, particularly when the payments were made over five years prior to the recovery order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that recovery of amounts paid beyond five years is impermissible, supported by the Supreme Court's precedent and a relevant government order that protects such increments from recovery.
Result: The court quashed the recovery order dated 08.05.2017 and allowed the writ petition, with no costs awarded.
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.
Teachers are entitled to incentive increments for higher qualifications relevant to the subjects they teach, as established by G.O. provisions, despite contrary departmental letters.
Payment of incentive increments based on higher qualifications gained should not be reclaimed unless based on misrepresentation or fraud.
The judgment established the conditions under which recovery of incentive increments was permissible, emphasizing the need for performance-based review of incentive increments for Teachers.
Recovery of benefits improperly enforced after a significant delay is inequitable when no fraud or misrepresentation occurred in the payment.
Opportunity to be heard and prejudice to the petitioner are essential considerations in matters of recovery of excess salary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
