K.KARUNAKARAN vs THE BRANCH OFFICER

2026:MHC:4317
WP No. 26830 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 26830 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011538072023}
and
WMP No. 26253 of 2023
K.Karunakaran
S/o. Sri.Karthikeyan
West Street, Sri Adhivaraganallur Post
Srimushnam Via
Kattumannarkoil Taluk
Cuddalore District 608 703
Petitioner
Vs
1. The Branch Officer
O/o The Principal Accountant General (A&E)
No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai 600 018
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
3. The District Educational Officer
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
4. The Head Master
Government High School
Palayankottai, Kattumannarkoil Taluk
Cuddalore District 608 701
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the
file of the 1st respondent in connection with the order passed in No.P18/2/
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:58:50 pm )

2026:MHC:4317
WP No. 26830 of 2023
11821957/ADK/331 dated 08.04.2022 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to sanction the third set of incentive increment for possessing
M.Ed, Qualification to the petitioner, in the light of the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.19044 of 2008 dated 11.08.2008 and W.A.No.
154 of 2009 dated 23.09.2010 and also in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated
20.12.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 10.10.2006 and revise the pension based
on that and pay all the arrears with effect from 01.03.2010.
For Petitioner: Mr.J.Shanmugasundara Babu
For Respondents: Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
Standing Counsel for R1
Mrs.Y.Kavitha
Additional Government Pleader for
R2 to R4
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
th
dated 8 April, 2022. The issue is in respect of incentive increment for securing
M.Ed. Degree.
2. The learned petitioner’s counsel would very much contend that though
in G.O.Ms.No.1023, Education Department dated 09.12.1993, M.Ed.,
qualification was considered to be eligible for two advance increments,
subsequently in G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education, Science & Technology
Department dated 20.12.1993, cut-off date was fixed that the incentive
increment shall be given only to those who possess the said higher qualification
as on 01.03.1993 and this concession will not be extended in future. It is the
specific contention of the learned petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner secured
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:58:50 pm )

2026:MHC:4317
WP No. 26830 of 2023
his M.Ed. Degree during 1999 and that the certificate was issued to him in
January, 2001. But in G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated
10.10.2006, the cut-off date, namely, 01.03.1993 was removed. Therefore, it is
his contention that notwithstanding the date of his qualification in 1999, he is
entitled for the incentive increment.
3. But, however, the said contention was totally objected by the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 as well as
st
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 respondent. The learned
Additional Government Pleader relies upon the Full Bench decision in
W.P.Nos.27261 of 2019 etc., batch dated 11.06.2026 ( S.Kalaiselvi v. The State
of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, School
Education Department, Chennai and others ) and would contend that as per
G.O.Ms.No.95, Human Resources Management Department dated 26.10.2023,
the petitioner is not entitled to have the incentive increment for securing higher
qualification and hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and
also perused the materials placed on record.
th st
5. While looking into the impugned order dated 8 April, 2022, the 1
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:58:50 pm )

2026:MHC:4317
WP No. 26830 of 2023
th
respondent has requested the 4 respondent to issue show cause notice to the
petitioner for recovery of the amount paid beyond his entitlement from the
pension amount. While looking into the above impugned order, so far, the
respondents have not issued any recovery order and this is only an instruction
st
issued by the 1 respondent to follow the due procedure before effecting
recovery.
6. In order to decide the above aspect, it is relevant to consider whether
the petitioner is entitled to have the incentive increment for securing M.Ed.
Degree?
7. According to the G.O.Ms.No.1023 dated 09.12.1993, the incentive
increment for M.Ed., qualification was granted to those who possessed the
M.Ed., qualification as on 09.12.1993. However, in the subsequent
G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 20.12.1993, the date, namely, 09.12.1993 was preponed
to 01.03.1993. But, immediately thereafter, in G.O.Ms.No.194 dated
10.10.2006, the cut-off date (01.03.1993) was removed. Now the contention of
the petitioner is that since the cut-off date (01.03.1993) is removed,
notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner secured the M.Ed., Degree during
1999, he is entitled to have the incentive increment.

4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:58:50 pm )

2026:MHC:4317
WP No. 26830 of 2023
8. However, this Court is not in a position to agree with the contention of
the learned petitioner’s counsel for the simple reason that even as per
G.O.Ms.No.1023 dated 09.12.1993, the incentive increment was sanctioned
only to those teachers who secured the M.Ed. Degree as on 09.12.1993. Though
subsequently the cut-off date so fixed was preponed to 01.03.1993, during 2006,
such cut-off date was removed. Therefore, it is amply clear that those persons
who got the qualification of M.Ed., as on 09.12.1993 alone are eligible to have
the incentive increment. Admittedly, the petitioner secured his M.Ed. Degree
only during 1999. But in spite of that, when the petitioner was sanctioned with
th
the incentive increment, now that in the impugned order dated 8 April, 2022,
the first respondent has found such mistake and directed the Department to issue
show cause notice to the petitioner for recovery.
9. However, now one another point to be decided is whether at this length
of time, the respondents can be permitted to proceed with the recovery. In this
regard, it is relevant to mention that even according to the respondents, it is not
their defence that based upon any false representation or submission of false
record, the petitioner had availed such incentive increment. It was only an
administrative lapse on the part of the respondent Department for having
sanctioned such an amount to the petitioner for more than 10 years. After a
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:58:50 pm )

2026:MHC:4317
WP No. 26830 of 2023
lapse of 10 years, if any recovery is effected, it would definitely impinge upon
the right to life of the petitioner. In this regard, it is relevant to mention the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others
v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), AIR 2015 SC 696 . As per the above ratio, the
question of recovery from the petitioner, who is the pensioner at this length of
time cannot be allowed to be permitted. Therefore, this Court, while looking
th
into the impugned order dated 8 April, 2022, finds that it does not reflect any
th
re-fixation and it only directs the 4 respondent to issue a show cause notice
only with reference to the recovery. In such view of the above communication,
th
this Court finds justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 8 April,
2022.
10. Hence, in view of the above detailed discussion, the impugned order
th
dated 8 April, 2022 is set aside. However, it is made clear that such
interference of the order dated 08.04.2022 does not militate the re-fixation that
st
had already been done by the 1 respondent, on the premise that the petitioner is
not entitled to have the incentive increment for securing the M.Ed. Degree
during 1999. At this juncture, the learned petitioner’s counsel submitted that so
far, the respondents have recovered substantial amount. If any amount is
recovered from the petitioner on account of the above show cause notice, the
respondent Department is directed to repay the same to the petitioner within a
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:58:50 pm )

2026:MHC:4317
WP No. 26830 of 2023
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ
petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous
petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
26-10-2026
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
ss
To
1.The Branch Officer
O/o The Principal Accountant General (A&E)
No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai 600 018
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
3. The District Educational Officer
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
4. The Head Master
Government High School
Palayankottai, Kattumannarkoil Taluk
Cuddalore District 608 701
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:58:50 pm )

2026:MHC:4317
WP No. 26830 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
ss
WP No. 26830 of 2023
26-10-2026
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 06:58:50 pm )