SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17554

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
E.SARASAU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP Nos. 9388, 9389 and 26212 of 2024 E.Sarasau D/o.Elumalai, No.1/52, Venkatesan First Cross Street, Bharathiar Nagar, Keelamaruvathur Village, Maruvathur Post, Cheyyar Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai. 2. The Director of School Education DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai.

3. The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational)

Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai.

4. The Chief Educational Officer Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.

5. The District Educational Officer Maduranthakam Educational District, Chengalpattu District.

6. The Head Master Government Higher Secondary School, Sothupakkam, Maduranthakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Na. Ka. No. 75940 / K / E1 / 2023-3 dated 06.03.2024 on the file of the 3rd respondent and consequential order in Na. Ka. No. 1571 / A4 / 2022 dated 11.03.2024 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same and further, direct the 3rd respondent to grant incentive increment to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.Uma Maheswari For Respondent(s): Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order of the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2024 and consequential order of the 4th respondent dated 11.03.2024 and seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to grant incentive increment to the petitioner.

2.The case of the petitioner is that, after completing SSLC and Higher Secondary, she qualified for B.Sc (Chemistry), and thereafter, pursued a two years Master of Physical Education and Sports (M.P.E.S) degree from Annamalai University in 1989. In the meanwhile, she was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher under the Secondary Grade Teacher cadre on 19.10.2000 in the School Education Department through the Employment Exchange and was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Karasanur, Villupuram District. Prior to joining service, the petitioner had enrolled in an M.Phil degree course. After joining the post of Physical Education Teacher, she attended the viva voce examination for the M.Phil degree and completed the same in 2001. She was granted an incentive increment for acquiring the M.Phil, degree with effect from 16.10.2001 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.324 dated 25.04.1995. Subsequently, an audit objection was raised stating that Physical Education Teachers appointed based on M.P.E.S or M.P.Ed., qualification are not eligible for promotion as well as incentive increments as per Government Letter dated 15.02.2011. Consequently, the incentive increment was stopped from 2014 onwards. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed W.P No.30913 of 2023, wherein this Court directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order dated 06.03.2024,based on an letter dated 15.02.2011 and also directed recovery of the excess amount already received by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the M.Phil degree may not be a relevant qualification for a Physical Education Teacher, the P.G Diploma in Yoga is a relevant qualification for the said post. He further contended that, in view of the principle laid down in the “White Washer” judgment, any amount already received by the petitioner cannot be recovered, especially when there was no misrepresentation or fault on her part. He fairly submitted that the petitioner may not be entitled to incentive increment in respect of the M.Phil degree, however she is entitled to incentive in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top