P.Anandhan vs The Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 4843 Mad

                                                                                  W.P.No.20516 of 2016


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 24.02.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

                                               W.P.No.20516 of 2016
                                             and WMP.No.17600 of 2016

                     P.Anandhan                                      ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs
                     1.The Director,
                       Directorate of School Education,
                       College Road,
                       Nungambakkam, Chennai.

                     2.The Joint Director,
                       Directorate of School Education,
                       College Road,
                       Nungambakkam, Chennai.

                     3.The Joint Director (Staff)
                       Directorate of School Education,
                       College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

                     4.The Chief Educational Officer,
                       O/o. the Chief Educational Office,
                       Sathuvachari, Vellore District,
                       Vellore.

                     5.The Head Master,
                       Government High School,
                       Kathiyavadi, Walajah Taluk,
                       Vellore District, Vellore.                           ... Respondents

                     1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                       W.P.No.20516 of 2016


                               Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the file Na.Ka.No. 55/2016
                     dated 13/06/2016 from the file of 5th respondent and quash the same and
                     forbearing the 5th respondent from withholding payment of incentive to the
                     petitioner.
                                     For Petitioner    : Mrs.R.T.Sundari
                                                         for Mr.R.Margabandhu

                                     For Respondents : Mr.P.Raja, GA

                                                          ORDER

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to issue a writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings

in Na.Ka.No.55/2016 dated 13/06/2016 on the file of the fifth respondent

and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the fifth respondent from

withholding payment of incentive to the petitioner.

2.According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Secondary Grade

Teacher on 07.08.1995 in Government High School, Nagamangalam,

Dharmapuri District. Subsequently, he was transferred and posted as

Secondary Grade Teacher in North Arcot District, Kathivadi High School in

1996 in the same scale of pay. Thereafter, he got promotion to the post of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20516 of 2016

BT Assistant (Tamil) on 02.08.2010. It is the further case of the petitioner

that after getting permission from the department, he acquired M.Com.

degree in the year 1996 and B.Ed. degree in the year 2013. Having

possessed these qualifications, the petitioner is entitled for two increments

for each degree and the same were accordingly, granted to him on

14.12.2013. However, by order dated 23.11.2015, the 2nd respondent

stopped the increment granted towards possession of M.Com degree,

consequent to which, the 5th respondent passed an order dated 13.06.2016

directing the petitioner to refund the excess incentive of Rs.79,629/-, which

is impugned herein.

3.On 17.06.2016, at the time of admission, this Court granted an order

of interim stay in respect of recovery of the excess payment made from the

salary of the petitioner.

4.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing

for the respondents jointly submitted that the issue involved herein is

covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20516 of 2016

29.06.2018 rendered in Writ Appeal No.1664 of 2016, the relevant passage

of which is extracted hereunder:

"5.Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate would contend that in view of G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 09.12.1993, which restricts the maximum number of incentive increments to two and in view of the fact that the respondent had already been granted two incentive increments, which is equivalent to four advance increments, the respondent will not be entitled any further incentive increment during the period of his service. A copy of the said G.O. dated 09.12.1993 has been produced before us, the relevant portion of the G.O. read as follows:

The maximum number of advance increments which a Teacher can get under the Scheme of incentive increments under this Government Order shall be four in his entire service. (one incentive increment is equivalent to two advance increments). The said position was clarified by the Government in G.O.Ms.285, School Education Department dated 28.11.2007, which reads as follows:

“As per the policy decision of the Government, two incentives (four increments) only may be granted to the teachers for the entire period of their service and hence, accepting the above recommendation of the Director of School Education, for the Headmasters who got only one incentive for M.Ed.

qualification during his service as Post

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20516 of 2016

Graduate Teachers and promoted to the Headmaster Post and after the promotion as Headmasters, on acquiring M.Phil/Ph.D/PGDTE qualification allowing a second incentive to such Headmasters from the date of the issue of this G.O. is ordered".

6.Of course, the respondent in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition has referred to certain Government Orders as well as the Orders of this Court granting a third set of incentive increments to certain teachers. The said Government Orders have also been produced before us by the learned Government Advocate, those Government orders have been passed in particular cases, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that the higher qualification in those cases are obtained, before 09.12.1993, i.e. the date on which the first G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.1023 was passed restricting the number of incentive increments to a maximum of two, during the service of the teacher. Therefore, we do not think that those Government Orders which have been passed taking note of certain special circumstances could be taken as precedents to enable the respondent to claim an incentive increment, which he would not be entitled to otherwise.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20516 of 2016

7.The policy decision of the Government has been consistent to the effect that the teachers who acquire higher qualifications can be granted two incentive increments equivalent to four advance increments, during the entire tenure of their service. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the respondent has been awarded two incentive increments for acquiring B.Ed. and M.A. qualifications. Therefore, he cannot, as a matter of right, claim the third set of incentive increments for having obtained M.Phil qualification. We are therefore, unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge directing payment of third incentive increment to the respondent.

8.For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the Writ Petition No.22860 of 2014 will stand dismissed. However in the circumstances without costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed".

5.Having regard to the above, now, it is made clear that the Teachers

including the petitioner, who acquired higher qualifications, can be granted

with two incentive increments equivalent to four advance increments,

during the entire tenure of service. Thus, the respondents are bound to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20516 of 2016

follow the Government Order referred to in the Judgment as well as the

above said decision of the Division Bench, for the purpose of grant of the

incentive increments to all the teachers, including the petitioner.

6.It is the specific case of the petitioner that originally, he was

granted two incentive increments for having acquired the degrees of M.Com

and B.Ed. and by the order impugned herein, he was denied one incentive

increment granted for M.Com degree. This Court is of the opinion that as

per the Government order and the decision of the Division Bench (cited

supra), the petitioner is entitled for two incentive increments, during his

entire service. If he was granted more than two incentive increments, it is

left open to the respondent authorities to recover the same in accordance

with law.

7.With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

                                                                                  24.02.2021

                     Index           : Yes/No
                     Internet        : Yes/No
                     mtl

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.20516 of 2016

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

mtl

To

1.The Director, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

2.The Joint Director, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

3.The Joint Director (Staff) Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

4.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o. the Chief Educational Office, Sathuvachari, Vellore District, Vellore.

5.The Head Master, Government High School, Kathiyavadi, Walajah Taluk, Vellore District, Vellore.

W.P.No.20516 of 2016

24.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/