G DHANDAPANI Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 2.9.2005, and to direct the respondents not to disallow the bonus increment to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Tamil Pandit (Grade II), on 5.11.1964. Before his appointment as a Tamil Pandit, (Grade II), he was working as an untrained Tamil Pandit, from 3.8.1962 to 4.11.1964. Later, he was promoted as a Tamil Pandit (Grade I), on 14.4.1966. In the year, 1995, he was offered a promotion, as the Headmaster of the High School, in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-200-10,500. Since, the scale of pay, in which the petitioner was drawing his pay, as a Tamil Pandit (Special Grade), was higher than the scale of pay for the post of Headmaster of a High School, the petitioner had expressed his inability to accept the offer of promotion. THE rejection of the offer for promotion by the petitioner had been accepted by the Director of School Education and it had been recorded in the petitioner's service register. Thus, the petitioner had continued as a Tamil Pandit (Grade I).

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent stating that the petitioner had availed one special increment (bonus increment), from 1.9.1998, contrary to the conditions specified, in G.O.Ms.No.562, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 28.9.1998, and the clarifications issued, in No.35681/CMPC/2000, dated 17.7.2000, addressed to all the Heads of Departments, clarifying that the bonus increments should not be availed by an employee, who had relinquished the promotion offered to him. This was once again clarified in the Government letter No.168, School Education Department, dated 11.10.2001. Since, the petitioner had relinquished his chances of promotion, on three occasions, he was not eligible for the bonus increment. Further, the petitioner had already executed consent declarations, even before the pensionary benefits had been sanctioned, to enable the recovery of the excess payment received by him, if any, during the tenure of his service, as per Rule 71 (3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu pension Rules, 1978. It has also been stated that, as per G.O.Ms.No.230, Personnel and Administration Reforms Department, dated 7.4.1988, charges, if any, pending against a dead employee, have to be withdrawn.