R PREMAKUMARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellant was working as Post Graduate Assistant under the fourth respondent school with effect from 4.11.1996, after having obtained M.A. (English) in 1983, B.Ed., in 1987, M.Phil. in 1989, M.Ed., in 1991 and M.A. (Sociology) in the year 1995. Her basic pay had been fixed at Rs.1,820/- in the scale of pay of Rs.1820-60-2300-75-3200. Subsequently, such pay was fixed as per the revised scale of pay at Rs.5900/- in the scale of pay of Rs.5900-200-9900 and ultimately fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-200-10500 in the year 1998. She was granted an incentive increment for having obtained M.Ed. qualification and another incentive increment for having obtained M.Phil qualification. While the matter stood thus, the Director of School Education issued order in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.147502/K2/2000 dated 18.10.2000 indicating that the teachers who are appointed between 1.1.1996 to 13.4.1998 were not eligible to incentive increments. Since recovery was sought to be made on the basis of such order passed by the Director, the appellant filed representation, which was turned down. Subsequently, she filed W.P.No.1260 of 2001, which was dismissed on 17.10.2006. In W.A.No.175 of 2007, against such decision, an order was passed on 20.2.2007 to the following effect:-

(2.) LEARNED single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has observed as follows:- "4. Incentive increments are granted only for persons acquiring higher qualifications while in service but not to a person, who possesses a higher qualification even before entering into service. In any event, the incentive increments are given before the new pay scales are revised in which the said increments are absorbed while granting fitment in the revised scale. That is the purport of G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance Department dated 13.4.1998. Further, Mr. Swamy relies upon G.O.Ms.No.1170 Education, Science and Technology Department dated 20.12.1993 which does not apply to the case of the petitioner. LEARNED counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001(1) Supreme 169 (E.S.P. Rajaram and others v. Union of India and others) and the same is not appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner's earlier attempt to prevent the recovery was only successful to the extent of the procedural formality to be followed and thanks to the Bench judgment. The authorities have passed a reasoned order about the recovery even though the attempt by the petitioner to forestall the recoveries of amounts, which are paid contrary to rules, is most inappropriate and legally not justified."

(3.) THE earliest Government Order is G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.1.1969. Relevant portion of such G.O., reads as follows:-