P.SELVENDRAN Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Ku.Aa.No.226/Ni.Pi/U.1/Ko. Court case/2011 dated 03.09.2011 and quash the same and further directing the respondents 1 and 2 to continue to pay the incentive increments.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Assessor in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 18.11.1985 and he got B.A. degree in English in 2000 and subsequently did B.Com degree in the 2nd respondent University in 2005. He was granted one incentive increment of Rs.130/- from 04.12.2006 on account of having passed B.Com degree as per B.P.M.S.No.750 dated 30.04.1979. The 3rd respondent offered one year B.Com degree as double degree for persons who have already got under graduation degree and the petitioner completed the said one year B.Com degree and was granted one incentive increment from 2006. In 2009, by proceedings dated 27.08.2008 of the board, it was held that University of Madras has clarified that one year B.Com degree course conducted by the 3rd respondent under distance education mode is not equivalent to three years B.Com degree course offered by the Institute of Distance Education, University of Madras and such a degree cannot be considered for the relevant higher studies by the University of Madras.

(3.) He would further submit that on the basis of the said order, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 02.03.2009 discontinuing the advance increment already sanctioned to the petitioner and re- fixed his scale of pay, against which, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 2726/2010 and this Court by order dated 24.11.2010 allowed the said writ petition setting aside the above order dated 02.02.2009 on the ground that no show cause notice was issued to him and no explanation was sought from him. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.03.2011. But, without properly considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 03.09.2011 discontinuing the advance increment and also ordered for recovery of the incentive increment already granted to a sum of Rs.15,800/- from the petitioner's salary in 10 equal instalments. According to the learned counsel, when the grant of alleged incentive increment was not due to the misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner, recovery cannot be ordered and therefore, this Court at the admission stage, by order dated 12.10.2011, had granted interim stay while ordering notice of motion. Thus, he would pray for setting aside the impugned order.