Madras High Court

A.Arul vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 October, 2021

                                                                              W.P.(MD)No.16561 of 2017


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 28.10.2021

                                                         CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

                                             W.P.(MD) No.16561 of 2017
                                      and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13195 & 13196 of 2017

                A.Arul                                                           ... Petitioner

                                                  Vs.
                1.The State of Tamil Nadu
                  Rep.by its Secretary
                  Department of School Education,
                  Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

                2.The Director of Elementary Education,
                  College Road, Chennai-600 006.

                3.The District Elementary Education Officer,
                  Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.                            ... Respondents

                Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
                relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent
                District Elementary Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.4309/Aa1/2017
                dated 16.08.2016 and his consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
                4309/Aa1/2017 dated 08.05.2017 and in Na.Ka.No.4309/Aa1/2017 dated
                15.06.2017 (cancelling the incentive increments paid for the petitioner
                for his B.Ed qualification w.e.f. 09.05.2009) and quash the same and
                further direct the third respondent herein to sanction and award
                forthwith the regular annual increments admissible to the petitioner form
                01.07.2017 onwards.


                                   For Petitioner         : Mr.Rahadeesh
                                                            for M/s.Isaac Chambers

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                1/8
                                                                                           W.P.(MD)No.16561 of 2017


                                    For Respondents            : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
                                                                 Government Advocate.


                                                             ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned

proceedings issued by the third respondent District Elementary

Educational Officer dated 16.08.2016 and his consequential proceedings

dated 08.05.2017 and 15.06.2017 and direct the third respondent herein

to sanction and award forthwith the regular annual increments

admissible to the petitioner form 01.07.2017 onwards.

2.The petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade

Teacher with effect from 15.09.1987 in Panchayat Union Primary School,

Melayoor, Illayangudi Union, Sivagangai District. At the time of

appointment the petitioner possessed D.T.Ed. Later, the petitioner was

promoted as Headmaster in the Panchayat Union Primary School,

Pukkuli, Ilayangudi Union, Sivagangai District with effect from

03.07.1998.

3.It is admitted that the petitioner while working as Primary School

Headmaster acquired B.Lit degree in Tamil in the year 2000. On the

basis of the said qualification, the petitioner was promoted as Middle

School Headmaster in Panchayat Union Middle School, Thugavoor,

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

W.P.(MD)No.16561 of 2017

Ilayangudi Union, Sivagangai District on 04.11.2003. After the petitioner

was promoted as Middle School Headmaster, he acquired B.Ed. and M.A.

degrees in the year 2009 and 2010 respectively. Since the two degrees

acquired by the petitioner are not required for the post of Middle School

Headmaster, it is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to get

incentive increments for higher qualification.

4.The petitioner after serving about nine years as Middle School

Headmaster, was posted as Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,

Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District by an order dated 08.03.2013. It is the

case of the petitioner that he is eligible to get incentive increment for

acquiring B.Ed. and M.A. degrees. The petitioner was granted two

incentive increments for acquiring B.Ed. and M.A. degrees with effect

from the date of completion of respective degrees. It is also contented by

the petitioner that several other persons, who are working as Assistant

Elementary Educational Officer and Middle School Headmasters, are

receiving incentive increments for acquiring B.Ed degree.

5.By the impugned order dated 16.08.2016, the third respondent

cancelled the incentive increment granted for acquiring B.Ed degree.

Since the respondents did not consider the representation submitted by

the petitioner, he has approached this Court. Meanwhile, the third

respondent directed the petitioner to remit the amount received by the

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

W.P.(MD)No.16561 of 2017

petitioner towards incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed degree.

Subsequently another remainder was also sent to the petitioner on

15.06.2017. Challenging the adverse orders, the petitioner filed the

present writ petition.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a

judgment of this Court in similar writ petition.

7.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondents, however, submitted that B.Ed degree is a qualification

required for holding the post of Headmaster of Middle School and

therefore, there cannot be additional increment for acquiring B.Ed

degree. The learned counsel tried to sustain the order on the basis of the

proceedings, dated 06.03.2014 issued by the Director of School

Education.

8.The learned Government Advocate did not produce the copy of

the proceedings, dated 06.03.2014, so that, this Court only can consider

the issue with little more effective. However, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the clarification that was issued by the Director of

Elementary Education by his communication, dated 07.06.1991. The

contents of the said communication are extracted hereunder:-

“ghh;itapw;fhz; fojj;jpy; J}j;Jf;Fo Kjd;ik fy;tp mYtyh;

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

W.P.(MD)No.16561 of 2017

nfhtpy;gl;o ehlhh; eLepiyg;gs;sp ,ilepiy Mrphpah; jpU.rKj;jpuf;fdp vd;gth; jkpHhrphpaUf;fhd jFjp bgw;wjhy; 21.09.188 Kjy; epue;juf; fhypnaw;gl;l jiyikahrphpah; gzpaplj;jpy; gjtp cah;t[ mspf;fg;gl;lhh; vdt[k;> jiyik Mrphpauhf epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l gpd;dh; gp.vl;. njh;r;rp bgw;Ws;shbudt[k;> 5tJ Cjpaf;FG ghpe;Jiuapd;go jiyikahrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjk; jkpHhrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjj;ijtpl nkyhd epiyapy; cs;sjhy; md;dhh; gp.vl; njh;r;rp bgw;wjw;fhd Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[fs; tHq;fyhkh? vdj; bjspt[iu nfhhpa[s;shh;.

nghjpa fy;tpj;jFjpa[ila Mrphpah;fs; mjw;F nkYk; fy;tpj; jFjp cah;j;jpf; bfhs;tjhy; khzth;fs; fy;tpj;juk; nkYk; caUk; vd;w mog;gilf; fhuzj;ij Kd;dpl;L mJ nghd;W Mrphpah;fs; fy;tpj; jFjpia cah;jj ; pf; bfhs;s ntz;Lbkd;gij Cf;Ftpf;Fk; bghUl;L Mrphpah;fSf;F Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ Mizia muR bfhz;L te;Js;sJ. Murhiz vz; 42 fy;tp ehs; 10.01.69-k;> murhiz vz;.107 fy;tp ehs; 20.01.76-k; gy;ntW Mrphpah;fSf;F tHq;fg;gl;lJ nghy> gp.vl; goj;j jkpHhrphpah;fSf;Fk;> Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ tHq;f Miz tHq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.

jkpHhrphpah; eLepiyg;gs;sp jiyikahrphpauhfg; gzpahw;wpa fhuzj;jpdhYk;>jkpHhrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjj;ijtpl jiyikahrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjk; mjpfkhdJ vd;gjhy; md;dhUf;F tHq;fg;gLk; Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ epWj;jp itg;gJ mtrpakpy;iy. Vbddpy; nkw;go jiyikahrphpaUk; jkJ fy;tpjuj;ij cah;j;jpf; bfhz;L tFg;g[fis elj;jp tUfpwhh;.”

9.In a similar writ petition with similar relief, this Court in W.P.

(MD)Nos.21368 of 2014 and 4332 of 2015 had an occasion to decide the

scope of the clarification issued by the Director of Elementary Education

in its order dated 07.06.1991. After elaborately considering the issue,

this Court disposed of the above said writ petitions in the following line:-

9.The case of the respondents in the counter affidavit is only to the effect that the petitioners, after becoming Headmistress of the Middle School, are not entitled to get incentive increments for acquiring B.Ed. Degree. It is

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

W.P.(MD)No.16561 of 2017

contended that the petitioners acquired B.Ed., after becoming Middle School Headmistress and that since B.Ed., Degree is a required basic qualification for appointment of Middle School Headmistress, as clarified by the Director of Elementary Education, the petitioners are not entitled to incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed. Degree. In support of this, the proceedings of the Joint Director of Elementary Education, dated 07.11.2014, was relied upon.

10.In the present cases, the petitioners were working as Primary School Headmistress from 17.06.2003 and 23.07.2007 respectively. The petitioners also became Middle School Headmistress in 2007 and 2010, respectively. The fact that the petitioners were given incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed., qualification after this promotion as Middle School Headmistress is admitted and the clarification of second respondent reflect the correct position. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get incentive increment for acquiring additional qualification as per the earlier proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education, dated 07.06.1991 and the same cannot be stopped or denied in view of the qualification prescribed later in the year 2013.

11.In view of the forgoing reasons, this Court finds that there is no merits in the contention of the respondents. Hence, these Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed.

12.In the result, the impugned orders passed vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No839/A/20104 by District Elementary Educational officer, dated 22.12.2014 and vide proceedings https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P.(MD)No.16561 of 2017

in Na.Ka.No.783/A2/2014, dated 20.01.2015, by the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, challenged in the two Writ Petitions are quashed. The respondents are directed to pay incentive increment to the petitioners in terms of the earlier order of the Government as clarified by proceedings of the Director of Elemantary Education, dated 07.06.1991.

10.The above said judgment passed by this Court is squarely

applicable to the present case and the petitioner is also entitled to the

same relief that was granted in an identical case.

11.In the result, the impugned order passed by the third

respondent dated 16.08.2016 and the consequential proceedings dated

08.05.2017 and 15.06.2017 are quashed. The third respondent is

directed to sanction and award forthwith the regular annual increments

admissible to the petitioner form 01.07.2017 onwards. Accordingly, this

writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

28.10.2021

Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No gns