S MARY SELVARANI Vs. ASSISTANT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Application No,447 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No,2963 of 2007, seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.1340/2000/Aa2 dated 10.10.2000 and quash the same so far as the petitioners are concerned.) The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.1340/2000/Aa2 dated 10.10.2000 and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

(2.) IT has been submitted that the 1st petitioner is working as a Headmaster at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Kadamangudi, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District. The 2nd petitioner is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher, Panchayat Union Middle School, Kandiyur (South), Thanjavur District. The 3rd petitioner is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher, Panchayat Union Middle School, Mohamed Bunder, Thanjavur District. All the three petitioners are working in the Thiruvaiyaru Panchayat Union. The petitioners were having degree qualifications at the time of their appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers. Even though, they were initially appointed on contract basis, their services had been regularised in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. A Secondary Grade Teacher, who is in possession of higher educational qualifications, shall be allowed incentive increments. Since the petitioners were in possession of higher educational qualifications, they were allowed incentive increments. However, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District, the respondent herein, had issued the impugned order, dated 10.10.2000, seeking to recover the incentive increments paid to the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and in view of the decisions cited above, the impugned order of the respondent, passed in Na.Ka.No.1340/2000/Aa2, dated 10.10.2000, is set aside, in so far as it relates to the recovery of the amounts already paid to the petitioner, as increment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, as n oted above. No costs. However, it is open to the respondent to refix all the pay scales that may be due to the petitioners. However it shall be done only after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing of the petitioners to put forth their cases.