IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.6.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.29569 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.3029 of 1996 C.Narayanamoorthy .. Petitioner vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Education, Science & Technology Department, Madras-9 2. Director of Elementary Education, Madras-6 3. Additional Assistant Educational officer Kancheepuram .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari to set aside para 6 of G.O.Ms.No.510, Education, dated 10.5.1989 and G.O.Ma.No.860, Education, dated 8.11.1995 and the consequential recovery order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.258/B1/96, dated 6.6.1996. For petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondents : Mr.T.Sreenivasan G.A O R D E R The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher, on 16.11.1987, on contract basis. He was ousted from service on 30.4.1988 and reappointed with effect from 1.6.1988, on a regular basis. While the petitioner was employed as a Secondary Grade Teacher two incentive increments were sanctioned for his acquiring a B.Ed. degree in the year, 1990 and he was given two more incentive increments for obtaining Master of Arts degree. The petitioner was also sanctioned an increment for training qualification. However, the third respondent had passed the impugned proceedings Na.Ka.No.258/B1/96, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.6.1996, for recovery of the increments paid to the petitioner, based on G.O.Ms.No.510, Education, dated 10.5.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.860, Education, dated 8.11.1995. 2. The petitioner has further stated that the recovery order, dated 6.6.1996, has been issued by the third respondent without prior notice to the petitioner. It has also been stated that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, based on which the incentive increments had been paid to him. 3. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Further, the learned Government Advocate had not refuted the claims made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. In view of the submissions made before this Court and in view of the records available, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the third respondent, to recover the incentive increments paid to the petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eye of law, since the said order had been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case. Further, the order passed for recovering the incentive increments could not be implemented till date, in view of the interim order of stay granted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been in force till date. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.258/B1/96, dated 6.6.1996, is set aside and the writ petition stands partly allowed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lan To: 1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Education, Science & Technology Department, Madras-9 2. Director of Elementary Education, Madras-6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Additional Assistant Educational officer Kancheepuram 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.32925. W.P.No.29569 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.3029 of 1996 KU(CO) RVL 10.07.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/