Madras High Court
J.D.Lazarus Tychicus vs The District Educational Officer on 27 June, 2022
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
J.D.Lazarus Tychicus ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Educational Officer,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Correspondent,
C.S.I. High School,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the first respondent herein in O.Mu.No.344/A4/2018 dated
22.02.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent
herein to award incentive increments to the petitioner for his M.Ed., and
M.Phil., degree with effect from April 2000 and April 2007 respectively with all
attendant benefits and privileges based on the judgment reported in 2008 (5)
MLJ 1349.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
For R-1 : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar,
Government Advocate.
For R-2 : No appearance.
ORDER
The request of the petitioner herein to award the incentive increments for
M.Ed., and M.Phil., qualifications, with effect from April 2000 and April 2007
respectively, has been rejected by the first respondent herein, through the
impugned order, dated 22.02.2018, predominantly, on the ground that the
petitioner had already given an undertaking at the time of his appointment that
he will not claim incentive increment.
2. This issue has been consistently held in favour of the teachers to whom
the incentive increments have been denied in view of the undertaking. In one
such decision passed in W.P.(MD).No.57 of 2019, dated 28.02.2020, in the case
of A.Masanamuthu Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu and others, this ratio
was held in the following manner:
“2.The respondents herein have taken a stand that the
appointment of the petitioner itself is to the effect that the
petitioner will not claim any incentive increment. The issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
as to whether such stand taken by the respondents has
already been considered by the two Division Bench of this
Court. In the case of R.Premkumari Vs. State of
Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary to Government
and others reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 3188, the Division
Bench of this Court was of the view that a person, who
enters into service after having acquired qualification,
would be entitled to get the incentive increment and any
other view, contrary to the same would be opposed to the
right of equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs of the order
read as follows:
'7. The learned single Judge has
observed "Incentive increments are granted
only for persons acquiring higher
qualifications while in service but not to a
person, who possesses a higher qualification
even before entering into service".
8. We do not think the aforesaid
observation of the learned single Judge can
stand the scrutiny of logic or even reality. The
obvious intention in granting an incentive
increment is for attracting higher qualified
people or for encouraging the existing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
employees to acquire higher qualification,
even though in service, so that the quality of
service would improve. This is obviously on the
assumption that a higher qualified person
could work more efficiently. Therefore, it defies
logic as to why a person who had already
qualified would not get an incentive increment,
if such an incentive increment is given to a
lower qualified person in service, who
acquires subsequently such higher
qualification. Such a differential treatment
would not stand the scrutiny of right to
equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution.
9. That apart, if the relevant G.Os are
examined carefully, it can be safely concluded
that the G.Os in reality do not intend to lay
down in the manner it has been now concluded
by the learned single Judge. We have already
extracted the relevant portions of the G.Os.
The underlined portion of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated
10.1.1969 indicates that if a person possessing
higher qualification enters into service, his
initial pay may be fixed by giving advance
increments. Similarly in the subsequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.8.1986, paragraph 2
makes it clear that "the P.G. teachers and
Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools
who possess or acquire Post Graduate
qualification in education i.e. M.Ed., Degree
shall be granted two advance increments in the
scales of pay admissible to them". It is no
where contemplated in the G.Os., that the
incentive increments would be given only to
those who acquired subsequently the
qualification, but it would be given to all those
who either possess, which means the degree is
obtained at the time of entering into service or
acquire, which means the degree is obtained
after entering into service. Even the
subsequent G.Os or the clarifications, no
where indicate that in order to be eligible for
getting incentive increment, the person has to
acquire such higher qualification only after
entering into service and not otherwise.
Therefore, we are unable to accept the
conclusion of the learned single Judge that a
person who enters into service after having
acquired a higher qualification, is not entitled
to get incentive increments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
10. Since the impugned order was
passed on the basis that the appellant was not
entitled to receive incentive increments having
entered into service with higher qualification
is now disapproved by us, the authorities are
required to consider the matter afresh in the
light of the conclusion already made to the
effect that the appellant was entitled to receive
such increments at the time of entry into
service.'
3.Likewise, when the Educational Department had refused
incentive increments to some teachers on the ground that
they had given undertaking that they will not claim
incentive increments, the said issue came up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in the case of The Director of Elementary
Education, Chennai and others Vs. The Correspondent,
St.Joseph Middle School, Devakottai Extension,
Sivagangai District and others, wherein, the Division
Bench had relied upon another Division Bench judgment in
W.A.(MD) No. 511 of 2011 and had come to the conclusion
that such teachers would be entitled to claim incentive
increments for higher qualification. The relevant
paragraphs of the judgment read as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
3.The reason for refusing the incentive
increment is on ground that the writ petitioners
when they were appointed had given an
undertaking that they will not claim incentive
increment when they acquire higher
qualification.
4.Similar issue was considered by the
Division Bench in the case of State of Tamil
Nadu v. Louis in W.A.(MD)No.511 of 2011
dated 27.06.2011. After considering the
objections raised by the Government, which is
similar to objections raised in these appeals,
the Court pointed out that the respondent
therein, had acquired higher qualification
M.Sc., and M.Ed., and acquiring higher
education will not prevent the writ petitioners
from claiming the incentive increment for
higher qualification. Therefore, the order
passed by the writ Court, granting relief to the
teacher was affirmed and the appeal filed by
the State was dismissed. The State preferred a
special leave petition before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Slp.C.C.No.13056 of 2014,
which was dismissed by an order dated
25.08.2014. It is seen that the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
rendered by the Division Bench has been
implemented by the Government in G.O.Ms.
No.(3d) No.13 School Education Department,
dated 06.02.2015. The writ Court, took into
consideration, the decision of the Division
Bench in the case of Premkumari v. State of
Tamil Nadu (2008 (5) MLJ 1349), while
granting relief to the writ petitioners.'
4.The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered in the aforesaid Division Bench orders and as such,
the stand taken by the respondents in refusing to grant
incentive increment to the petitioner for possessing higher
educational qualification cannot be justified.”
3. The aforesaid decision in A.Masanamuthu's case (supra) was upheld by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.442 of 2021, dated
08.07.2021. These decisions are squarely applicable to the petitioner's case and
as such, the reason assigned by the respondents cannot be sustainable.
Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 22.02.2018, is quashed. Consequently,
there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to award incentive
increments to the petitioner for his M.Ed., and M.Phil., degree with effect from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
April 2000 and April 2007 respectively, with all attendant benefits and
privileges, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
4. This Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to
costs.
27.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
To
The District Educational Officer,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
M.S.RAMESH, J.
Lm
W.P.(MD).No.5494 of 2018
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
