M DEVADHASAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Application in O.A. No. 6052 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition.

(2.) The applicant challenges the order of recovery of the incentive granted to him for getting an M.A. Degree. The only point for consideration is earlier, he was working as B.T. Assistant and appointed on 24.08.1989. When he acquired an M.Ed. degree in the year 1985, he got the incentive increment for working as B.T. Assistant. Subsequently, there was a publication calling for the post of P.G. Assistant through Teachers Recruitment Board. He appeared in an interview and appointed as P.G. Assistant directly through the Teachers Recruitment Board and relinquished his earlier B.T. Assistant post. On such appointment, he was only given a salary of Rs.1,820/-, whereas in the earlier post he was drawing Rs.1,900/-. If he had continued, he would have got Rs.1,900/-. In fact, the last pay drawn by the applicant was Rs.1,900/- in the cadre of B.T. Assistant. He was not given as a promotion of P.G. Assistant, but he was directly recruited through Teachers Recruitment Board. The P.G. Assistant comes under the category of Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Service Rules and the earlier services were not counted for his service and also he was asked to resign from his earlier post. He resigned his earlier post, neither his pay parity was given in the new post in the P.G. Assistant post. Further, he was treated as a new entrant. Thereafter, as P.G. Assistant in the direct recruitment post, he got the incentive in so far as the additional higher qualification of M.A., M.Ed. Under the impugned order, the applicant is asked to pay back the incentive which was given in the P.G. Assistant cadre for the additional course passed by him. The only contention is that the P.G. post is the separate post, in which, he has come as a new entrant as a direct recruitment and since, his pay parity was not fixed in the earlier post which was also resigned by him. Now, the present incentive which was given, is proper and correct. Hence, the applicant challenges the recovery of the incentive granted in the P.G. Assistant post.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate submits in his counter that originally the applicant was given an incentive increment, when he was working as a B.T. Assistant. Subsequently, even though he resigned the earlier post and was directly recruited as P.G. Assistant inasmuch as the increment has been given in another capacity, the same cannot be again given in this capacity, even though, this P.G. Assistant post is a direct recruitment. Therefore, he says by mistake the incentive was granted and hence, he has prayed for refund of total sum of Rs.10,180/- for which, the impugned order has been passed. He would also contend that at the time of resigning the earlier post, the applicant has also undertaken to pay the excess amount, if any to be paid. Therefore, he was bound to pay the recovery amount.