T BABY CHANDRABAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Application No,293 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No,48398 of 2006, seeking for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Government Letter No.1661/E2/2000-4 School Education Department, dated 12.2.2000 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent in her proceedings No,641E/2000, dated 29.12.2000 and set aside the same.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE petitioner has obtained the qualification of B.Litt., in the year, 1975 and she had also undergone Pandit Training Course in the year, 1984 and had obtained a Masters Degree in Tamil in the year, 1996. She was appointed as B.T. Tamil Pandit, on 22.11.1996. While so, she was sanctioned one set of incentive increments for acquiring M.A. Qualification, from 22.11.1996, in the month of September, 1998. THE scale of pay of the petitioner, which was Rs.1400/- had been revised, as per the Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998. Accordingly, the scale of pay had been fixed at Rs.5500/-, with effect from 1.1.1996. THEreafter, based on her request, two incentive increments were given to the petitioner for her higher qualification, from 22.11.1996. THEreafter, her scale of pay had also been revised. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued orders, in Letter No.1661/E2/2000-4, School Education Department, dated 12.2.2000, whereby, it has been directed that the incentive increments should not be given in the revised scale of pay and therefore, the second respondent had instructed that the incentive increments, already sanctioned in the new scale of pay, were to be recovered from the salary of the concerned persons. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

(3.) THE recovery of the excess amount said to have been paid to the petitioner cannot be made, as held by this Court in its order, dated 27.6.2008, made in W.P.No.16150 of 2006 and as held in the following decisions: