Sunday, September 24, 2017
Judgement of Madras High Court Madurai Bench – Reg grant of increment to one who superannuated on 31.3.2010
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Writ Petition(MD)No.994 of 2016
J.VADIVELU … PETITIONER
Vs.
1)THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, RAMANATHAPURAM.
2)THE ASSISTANT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, RAMANATHAPURAM
DATED : 19.01.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent i.e. the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, relating to Na.Ka.No.777/A1/2014 dated 25.08.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction increment to the petitioner which fell due on 01.04.2010 and consequently send revised pension proposals within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Honourable Court.
:ORDER:
The petitioner was serving as a Middle School Graduate Headmaster in a Panchayat Union Middle School at Ramanathapuram Taluk.He retired from service on 31.03.2010 on reaching the age of superannuation. Since he was a teacher, he was continued upto the end of academic year.
2.His grievance is that when his increment fell due on 01.04.2010 for the service rendered between 01.04.2009 and 31.03.2010, the same was declined by the impugned order dated 25.08.2014 by then second respondent. Hence, this writ petition.
3.Since the issue lies in a narrow compass and also the same is covered by a decision in
W.P(MD)No.22589 of 2010 dated 03.08.2011 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in
W.A(MD)No .2095 of 2011 dated 10.11.2011 that was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.C.No.10842 of 2013 dated 04.07.2013, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
4.It is not in dispute that the petitioner served between 01.04.2009 and 31.03.2010 and hence, he sought for increment for the service rendered and the same cannot be denied. The aforesaid judgment also took the same view.
5.In view of the same, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the second respondent to sanction annual increment which fell due on 01.04.2010, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent is directed to send revised pension proposal, pursuant to sanction of annual increment within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Posted by Maheshwari Sc at 4:45 AM
