R. Irudayaraj vs The District Elementary, Educational Officer and The Assistant Elementary, Educational Officer

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner is a senior to one Mr. Sundaram. The Petitioner was given incentive increment foracquiring higher

qualification. However, when the paywas revised, the pay of the Petitioner as well as hisjunior became the same. Thereafter, his juniorobtained

higher qualification and he was also awardedincentive increment. Thus the junior got more pay. But, the pay of the Petitioner was not enhanced.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that theincentive increment given to him was sought to berecovered on the ground that the incentive

incrementgiven to his junior was cancelled as the same was givenbased on getting a degree through open university.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner statesthat thereafter the Government issued G.O.(Ms). No. 29,School Education Department, dated

17.02.2006recognising the decree issued by the Open Universityfor grant of incentive increments and in view of theaforesaid G.O.(Ms). No. 29,

the junior was again granted the incentive increment. Hence, there is no question of excess pay to the Petitioner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugnedorder sought to recover the excess pay from thePetitioner has to be quashed. Accordingly,

theimpugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition isallowed. No costs.