THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER v. P.XILDA SUMATHI ESTHER
WA(MD)/122/2021 · 2026-08-17
M Dhandapani, N Dilip Kumar
Transfer Petitionbody2021
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2021 DAILYLAW 4298 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2021 DAILYLAW 4298 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
W.A(MD)No.122 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.08.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR W.A(MD)No.122 of 2021 and CMP (MD) No.294 of 2021 The District Educational Officer Melur, Madurai District. : Appellants
Vs.
1. P.Xilda Sumathi Esther
2. The Correspondent, OCPM Girls Higher Secondary School, Madurai-2. ... Respondent
Prayer:This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 1215 of 2018 dated 31.01.2018.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, SGP
For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali (R1) 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.122 of 2021 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI.J.) This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1215 of 2018, dated
31.01.2018.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1990 with a higher qualification, by dispensing increment for higher qualification. However, at the verge of her retirement, the first respondent made a claim for the said incentive increment, which was rejected by the authorities. Challenging the said rejection, the first respondent filed the writ petition and the learned Single Judge allowed the same in her favour.
3. However, on instructions, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the first respondent is not inclined to receive the incentive increment from the respondents. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside and the issue may be given a quietus. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.122 of 2021
4. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.D.I.,J] [N.D.K.,J]
17.08.2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No PKN To The District Educational Officer Melur, Madurai District. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.122 of 2021 M.DHANDAPANI, J AND N.DILIP KUMAR, J PKN
W.A(MD)No.122 of 2021 17.08.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis