AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—This Writ Petition has been focussed to call for the records of the third respondent in Aathimu No. 123/A1/2003 dated
12.12.2003 and to quash the same and further to direct the respondents to continue to pay the incentive increments with effect from October,
1995 to the petitioner.
Heard both sides.
A resume of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Writ Petition would run thus:
The Writ petitioner herein, presently a retired head master, who worked in Educational Department under Tamil Nadu Government, while he was
in service it so happened that he through Correspondence course studied B.Ed. as well as M.A. and got both the degrees. In recognition of his
acquisition of academic qualification he was granted two incentive increments vide order dated 29.03.1993 of the Assistant Educational Officer,
Peravurani, with effect from 16.11.1992. However, subsequently, the Assistant Educational Officer, Peravurani, vide order dated 16.10.1995
cancelled the two incentive increments i.e. 4 increments ordered in his favour on the main ground that the petitioner completed the M.A. degree
course and B.Ed. Decree course during one and the same period of time. The petitioner preferred appeal but it was kept in cold storage.
Thereupon the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 865 of 1999 before the State Administrative Tribunal, Madras. The Tribunal directed the
respondents to consider the appeal on merits and to pass orders within a period of ten weeks. Whereupon the authority concerned rejected by his
Cryptic order dated 12.12.2003 that since the Writ Petitioner had did his both the aforesaid courses during the same period of time, no such
increments could be given. Challenging such stand taken by the third respondent this Writ Petition has been filed.
The point for consideration is as to whether the authorities concerned were justified in withdrawing the two incentives ie. four increments granted
in favour of the Writ Petitioner for the reasons set out supra?
The learned counsel for the Writ petitioner would submit that at the first instance the petitioner duly applied for B.Ed. course so as to under go
that course through correspondence under the Madras University Distant Education. As he failed in one subject i.e., Psychology he completed it
during the year 1992. Even before that during August, 1989, he applied for M.A. Course through correspondence and completed it by May 1992;
the Assistant Educational Officer, Peravurani, in recognition of that passed orders dated 29.03.1993 granting two incentives i.e., four increments,
but it was subsequently withdrawn on the main ground that the petitioner was not entitled to get increments as he had completed the two academic
courses during one and the same period.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the communication dated 28.10.2002 sent by the Director, Institute of Correspondence Education,
University of Madras, to the District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur, the learned counsel for the petitioner would develop his arguments
to the effect that as per the said communication there is no express embargo in undergoing two courses simultaneously even though by way of
convention it is not entertained. An excerpt from the communication of the said Director is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
With reference to your letters cited, I am to inform you that there is no specific ruling in the laws of this University preventing the students from
undergoing two courses simultaneously. However, it is only a convention not to permit students to undergo for two different courses simultaneously
in the Institute of Correspondence Education where the requirement of required attendance is not required.
It is therefore clear that the petitioner has not committed any illegality or fraud. In fact he showed academic interest and enthusiasm in studying
two courses. No doubt Courts should discourage fraudulent acts as well as misconducts on the part of the Government Servants. But in this case
the Government Servant completed the two degree courses showing enthusiasm, and that might have certainly helped him to perform his function
as headmaster, efficiently. In such a case, the Department could have taken a lenient view. I could see no illegality or fraud involved in the act of
the Writ Petitioner.
In such a case this Court could elucidate the misery of the Writ Petitioner and accordingly quashed the order of the third respondent in Aathimu
No. 123/A1/2003 dated 12.12.2003 and the Writ Petition is allowed. The consequential arrears of pay shall be paid to the petitioner within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The connected W.P.M.P.(MD) No. 10743 of 2005 is closed. No costs.