Madras High Court
R.Balasubramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2021
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)No.5963 of 2021
R.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Joint Director (Vocational),
Directorate of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.240, School Education Department, dated
18.08.2010 passed by the first respondent and consequential order
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
passed by the third respondent, dated 28.10.2020 bearing Na.Ka.No.
2541/A3/2020 and quash the same with regard to cut-off date i.e.,
18.08.2010 and directing the respondents to extend the benefits of the
G.O.Ms.No.240, School Education Department, dated 18.08.2010 to give
one incentive with two increments for acquiring higher qualification to
the petitioner and as per the judgment rendered by this Court, dated
17.04.2012 in W.P(MD)No.12817 of 2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.240,
School Education Department, dated 18.08.2010 passed by the first
respondent and consequential order passed by the third respondent,
dated 28.10.2020 bearing Na.Ka.No.2541/A3/2020 and quash the same
with regard to cut-off date i.e., 18.08.2010 and directing the
respondents to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.240, School Education
Department, dated 18.08.2010 to give one incentive with two
increments for acquiring higher qualification to the petitioner and as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
the judgment rendered by this Court, dated 17.04.2012 in W.P(MD)No.
12817 of 2011.
2.Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu, learned Additional Government
Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3.According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a single part
time Vocational Instructor on 01.12.1980 and his service was regularized
on 01.04.1990. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2008.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
as per G.O.Ms.No.240, School Education Department, dated 18.08.2010,
the petitioner is entitled to receive one incentive with two increments for
acquiring higher qualifications. Hence, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition
in W.P(MD)No.9948 of 2020 and the said Writ Petition was allowed on
15.08.2020, by directing the respondents to consider his representation.
As per the order of this Court, the petitioner's representation was
considered and rejected by the third respondent by the impugned order,
dated 28.10.2020. Challenging the said impugned order, the petitioner
has come out with the present Writ Petition. The learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the reason given by
the third respondent in the impugned order is erroneous as the persons,
who have acquired higher qualification even before the date of G.O are
also entitled to incentive increments and relied on the Judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court made in W.P.No.12261 of 2004, dated
26.06.2008 (R.Kallanda Perumal Vs. the Registrar and others).
5.Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu, learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner
retired from service on 31.10.2008 on attaining the age of
superannuation, even before issuance of G.O. Hence, he is not entitled to
the benefit of G.O. The petitioner made belated claim and hence, the
claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected. The learned
Additional Government Pleader relied on the order of this Court, dated
20.03.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.5789 of 2013 (S.Joseph Alphonse Raj
Vs. The Secretary to Government and others). The relevant portions of
the said order read as follows:-
“9.In respect of the present writ petition, the Government
issued G.O.Ms.No.240, dated 18.08.2010 as far as the Vocational
Instructor working in School are concerned. Therefore, the said
G.O., was issued only for the benefit of Vocational Instructor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
working in Government schools. However, the scheme of
incentives increments was introduced for the Vocational
Instructor first time the Government thought fit to grant monitory
benefits with effect from the date of the issuance of the
Government Order. Thus, it is the policy decision taken by the
Government taking into account the financial constraints. If the
benefits are extended with retrospective effect and this Court is
of an opinion that the same will have huge monitory implications.
The Courts cannot enlarge the scope of the Government Order in
this regard.
10.The scheme of incentives being a concession cannot be
claimed as a matter or right. The concession has to be availed on
the basis of the terms and conditions stipulated. However, such
concession cannot constitute right and the Government can even
cancel the concession granted in respect of these Teachers. Such
schemes are to be impleaded in its terms and conditions and
therefore, the cut off date fixed by the Government in this regard
cannot be set to be illegal.
11.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner referred to
the order passed by this Court on 16.04.2012 in W.P.(MD) No.
960 of 2011, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the above judgment are
extracted here under:
“9.It is not in dispute that other teachers are
granted incentive increments from the date on, which they
acquired higher qualification. If those teachers acquired
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
higher qualification, even before joining service, they are
given incentive increment from the date of joining service.
It if is so, it is not fair to deny the same to the petitioners.
In fact, the Vocational Teachers were also granted
incentive increments, but the same was withdrawn by the
authorities leading to the filing of batch of writ petitions
and the batch was allowed as stated above.
10.In these circumstances, I am of the view that
the first respondent is not correct in treating the
vocational teachers differently. Therefore, the portion of
the impugned order, which restricts the payment of
incentive increments only from the date of issuing of the
order for acquiring the higher qualification is quashed and
the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.”
12.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that a
particular portion of G.O., was already quashed. However, the
above said judgment may not have any implication in respect of
the facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, in view
of the fact that the writ petitioner retired from service on
31.05.2009 itself. Therefore, the very benefit granted in the
G.O., cannot be granted to the writ petitioner.
13.On a perusal of the Government Order, it is very clearly
enumerated that the incentive increments are to be granted in
respect of the Vocational Instructor, who are in service. The
G.O., repeatedly emphasised with the Vocational Teachers, who
are in service alone are entitled for the incentive increments to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
granted for acquiring additional qualification. Thus, the
G.O.Ms.No.240, School Education Department, dated 18.08.2010,
is not applicable to the writ petitioner.
14.As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, he had retired
from service on 31.05.2009 before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.
240, dated 18.08.2010. Thus, the claim of the writ petitioner
deserves no consideration at all. The judgment cited also may
not have any application in respect of the facts and circumstances
of the case on hand. Thus, the writ petitioner is not entitled for
the relief as such sought for in this writ petition.”
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
7.From the rival submissions made on either side, it is seen that
the third respondent passed the impugned order by rejecting the request
of the petitioner for incentive increments, as he had retired on
31.10.2008, before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.240, School Education
Department, dated 18.08.2010. The contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the third respondent rejected the request of the
petitioner on the ground that he acquired higher qualification before the
cut-off date is not correct. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
seen that the third respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner only
on the ground that he was not in service on the date of G.O. Further, the
petitioner has made a representation only in the year 2020 for incentive
increments from the year 1995. The third respondent has considered the
request of the petitioner and rightly rejected the same and the Judgment
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.12261 of
2004, dated 26.06.2008, is not applicable to the facts of the case. But,
this Court considered the issue elaborately and rejected the claim of the
petitioner therein in W.P(MD)No.5789 of 2013, dated 20.03.2018, which
is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the
Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
19.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Joint Director (Vocational),
Directorate of School Education,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.7821 of 2021
19.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
