18 July 2025 Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

A writ petition filed by G. Selvam, a Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) challenging an order to recover an incentive increment previously granted for his M.Phil. degree. The recovery order, issued on November 7, 2016, was based on a clarification in G.O.(Ms.) No. 177, dated October 13, 2016, which stated that M.Phil. incentive increments for P.E.Ts would only apply from the date of that G.O. The petitioner sought to quash this recovery and receive the incentive increment from his appointment date, January 10, 2011.

The petitioner, appointed on January 10, 2011, already held an M.Phil. degree (acquired in 2007). In 2013, he was granted the incentive increment based on G.O.(Ms.) No. 18, which had extended similar benefits to B.T. Assistants, and a departmental understanding that it applied to P.E.Ts as well. However, G.O.(Ms.) No. 177 later clarified that P.E.Ts' entitlement to this increment was prospective, leading to the impugned recovery order, issued without prior notice.

The petitioner argued that the benefit was granted based on prevailing administrative interpretation, and it couldn't be retrospectively withdrawn. He also contended that the recovery, made without notice, violated natural justice, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, which generally prohibits recovery of excess payments from Class III employees if made due to employer error and without misrepresentation by the employee.

The learned Additional Government Pleader argued that the initial grant was erroneous as G.O.(Ms.) No. 18 did not cover P.E.Ts, and the recovery was necessary after the clarification.

Upon review, the Court found that the incentive increment was granted in 2013 due to the Department's own interpretation, and the petitioner had not misrepresented any facts. Since the benefit had been in effect for over three years before being withdrawn without notice, the recovery was deemed procedurally flawed. The Court affirmed that, under the Rafiq Masih doctrine, recovering sums from a Class III employee (like the petitioner) due to employer error, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, is impermissible.

However, the Court declined to grant retrospective monetary relief from January 10, 2011. It noted that G.O.(Ms.) No. 18 did not extend to P.E.Ts, and G.O.(Ms.) No. 177 explicitly made the entitlement prospective. Therefore, while the recovery order (Na.Ka.No 208/Al/2016 dated 07.11.2016) was quashed, the petitioner's claim for retrospective incentive increment from his appointment date was denied. His entitlement, if any, will be governed by the policy laid down in G.O.(Ms.) No. 177 from its effective date.