The retrospective application of G.O.Ms.No.118 contradicted prior court rulings, rendering the recovery of payments illegal and inequitable.

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA W.P.No.4081 of 2022 and WMP.No.4220, 4219 & 16516 of 2022 S. Amaravathi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner School Education DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006.

2. The District Educational Officer, Krishnagiri.

3. The Block Educational Officer Krishnagiri.

4. The Headmaster Government High School Pethanappali Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India , to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2499/A3/2021 dated 02.02.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue to pay the petitioner incentive increment for having acquired higher qualification of master's decree (M.A.Degree).

For Petitioner : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy Senior Counsel for Ms.Suneetha For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fazil Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2499/A3/2021 dated 02.02.2022 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue to pay the petitioner incentive increment for having acquired higher qualification of master's decree (M.A.Degree).

2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Secondary Grade teacher on the basis of employment exchange seniority, with effect from 07.10.1996. She was subsequently promoted as BT Assistant with effect from 05.11.2007. At the time of appointment itself the petitioner was qualified with M.A. Degree, and B.Ed. Degree which she obtained from Annamalai University in May 1994 and May 1996 respectively. The petitioner subsequently completed B.A., History in May 2001. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.307 School Education Department, dated 16.12.2000, extending the benefit of incentive increment to those persons who obtained the Masters degree directly without undergoing the UG course. Accordingly, based upon the said Government Order the petitioner was granted with incentive increment from the date of the issuance of the said G.O. i.e, with effect from 15.12.2002 vide proceedings of the third respondent dated 11.04.2001. The petitioner continued to receive the said incentive increment for a period of 21 years. Later, G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 10.07.2013, was passed cancelling G.O.Ms.No.307 dated 15.02.2000. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the incentive increment vide proceedings dated 01.10.2021, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22247 of 2021, and this Court set aside the impugned order holding that the respondents could not recover the amount which was paid for a period of 13 years, between 2000 – 2013. The Court further held that so far as the payment of incentive increment beyond 13 years was concerned the respondents were bound to issue notice to the petitioner, get a reply, consider the same and thereafter take a final decision. Pursuant to the orders of this Court the respondents issued a show cause notice on 23.12.2021, to the petitioner to which she replied on 10.01.2022. According to the petitioner, the impugned order was liable to be quashed as despite the order of this Court, that G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 10.07.2013, was prospective, the second respondent vide impugned order applied it retrospectively by directing the petitioner to repay the excess payment with effect from 15.02.2000. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.

3. The 2^nd respondent filed a detailed counter narrating the entire history of the case. The respondents stated that pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.22247 of 2021 dated 21.10.2021, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, to which she submitted her