Madras High Court
V.Chandra Pushpam vs The District Elementary ... on 25 August, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
V.Chandra Pushpam .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
T.Vadipatti,
Madurai District.
3.The President
Kamarajar Middle School,
Sholavanthan
T.Vadipatti Taluk
Madurai District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining
to the impugned proceedings of 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.817/2016/A2 dated
29.11.2016 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional consequently
direct the 2nd respondent to approve 182 days leave taken by the petitioner to
study B.Ed from 11.10.2011 to 04.04.2012 and grant her incentive increment
for having qualified B.Ed., degree forthwith, in the light of proceedings of 1st
respondent in Na.Ka.No.4115/B3/2016, dated 30.11.2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasubramanian
For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Government Advocate
For R3 : No appearance
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated
29.11.2016 and direct the second respondent to approve 182 days leave taken
by the petitioner to study B.Ed., from 11.10.2011 to 04.04.2012 and grant her
incentive increment for having qualified B.Ed., degree, in the light of the
proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.11.2016.
2.The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition
are as follows:
(i)The Petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher at
Hindu Primary School, Thandavankadu, Tiruchendur Taluk, with effect from
26.07.1988. The Petitioner joined in the third respondent school on 01.08.2002
and she is working in the third respondent school. It is stated by the petitioner
that on completion of 10 years of service, she was given selection grade and
thereafter, given special grade with effect from 26.07.1988 and 26.07.2008
respectfully. The petitioner acquired degree in B.A(History) in the year 1994
and later completed his post graduation in M.A(History) in the year 1997. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
petitioner sought permission from the third respondent to undergo B.Ed.,
degree course and she also availed leave from 11.10.2011 to 10.01.2012. The
petitioner was granted permission and leave and hence, she was relieved for
undergoing B.Ed., course in the year 2011. After getting extension of leave for
studying B.Ed., the petitioner had availed 182 days of leave for completing
B.Ed., course at St.Josephs College of Education, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi
District.
(ii)The petitioner, on the basis of B.Ed., degree obtained by her,
approached the second respondent through proper channel to regularize and
approve 182 days of leave period taken by the petitioner for completing B.Ed.,
course. However, the second respondent rejected the petitioner's request for
applying leave of 182 days stating that the third respondent school is under
direct payment from 2011 and that permission ought to have been granted by
the second respondent and not the third respondent. It is also stated in the order
that there is a dispute with regard to the management ie., constitution of school
committee and it is stated that a writ petition was pending and hence, the
petitioner's request for grant of leave cannot be considered. It is true that the
first respondent passed an order of direct payment with effect from July 2011.
Pursuant to the direction issued by the first respondent, the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
has taken control over the third respondent school. The petitioner therefore,
submitted a representation to the second respondent to sanction incentive
increment for acquiring higher qualification of B.Ed., degree course, while in
employment. The petitioner also submitted further representations. However,
the respondents by impugned order, rejected her claim. Hence, the above writ
petition is filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this
Court in several judgments acknowledged the entitlement of secondary grade
teachers to get incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification, after
joining in service. The petitioner's eligibility is now doubted by the respondent.
By the impugned order, the second respondent rejected the claim of the
petitioner for incentive increment on the ground that the claim of the petitioner
for incentive increment can be considered only after the disposal of the
litigation with regard to the appointment of Secretary to the school. The learned
counsel also produced, before this Court, the proceedings of the first
respondent, dated 30.11.2016, giving instructions to the second respondent to
grant incentive increment to the petitioner for acquiring B.Ed., qualification.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of The Director of Elementary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
Education -vs- G.Vijayalakshmi and others, reported in (2015)6 MLJ 315,
wherein it is held that the school committee is the authority to deal with the
service conditions of the staff. The Division Bench did not accept the
contention of the Director of Elementary Education that permission or No
Objection Certificate should be obtained from the Director of Elementary
Education. Though recognized private aided institutions, perform a public duty
and receive salary for the staff, from State Aid, it is held by the Division Bench
of this Court that insofar as the grant of leave is concerned, it should be
sanctioned only by the School Committee in exercise of its power under
Section 18 of the Act. It is also clarified that merely because the petitioner
therein did not obtain sanction of leave from the Director of Elementary
Education, Chennai, it cannot be said that there is a violation of provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the
Rules framed therein.
4.In the present case, the eligibility of the petitioner to get incentive
increment and to get leave salary for the period during which the petitioner
underwent B.Ed., course, after getting permission from the Management is not
disputed. Insofar as the prayer to approve the leave taken by the petitioner for
studying B.Ed., course is concerned, the respondents submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
petitioner did not get permission for leave for her studies from the Secretary of
the school and that the request of the petitioner for sanctioning incentive
increment would be considered after the lapse pointed out is set right. As far as
the grant of incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification is concerned,
this Court had already settled the issue at rest. However, incentive increment to
the petitioner was denied only by citing the order of direct payment. It is not a
valid excuse. The claim for incentive increment has to be paid only by the
department. With regard to the grant of leave and for salary, the respondents
have stated that the issue will be considered only after the dispute regarding the
management is settled. It is submitted before this Court by the learned counsel
for the the petitioner that there is no dispute as on date with regard to the
management and that the school is now under the control of educational agency
as the disputes are all settled.
5.However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
Official Respondents submitted that respondents 1 and 2 have received some
information questioning the genuineness of B.Ed., degree obtained by the
petitioner. The learned Government Advocate has not produced any material
nor disclosed the source of information. The petitioner's entitlement for
incentive increment was denied not on the ground that the certificate produced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
by the petitioner is bogus. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
submission to adjourn the matter unnecessarily for production of files and
records.
6.Having regard to the facts narrated and discussed above, this Court
is inclined to dispose of the writ petition in the following lines:
(i)This Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the
second respondent, dated 29.11.2016 is quashed. The second respondent is
directed to grant incentive increment to the petitioner for having acquired
B.Ed., degree, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
(ii)However, it is open to the second respondent to hold an enquiry
with regard to the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner to
get incentive increment. In case, if it is found that the petitioner has produced a
bogus or the certificate produced by the petitioner is not genuine, this order
directing the respondent to grant incentive increment can be ignored.
(iii)The second respondent is directed to approve 182 days leave
taken by the petitioner to study B.Ed., course from 11.02.2010 to 04.04.2012.
No costs.
24.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: yes / No
Ns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
Ns
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.
W.P.(MD).No.2345 of 2017
25.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
