Madras High Court
Director Of School Education vs P.Rajamanickam on 10 October, 2022
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
1.Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
2.Joint Director of School Education,
(Thozhilkalvi)
Chennai – 6.
3.District Educational Officer,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. ...Appellants
Vs.
1.P.Rajamanickam ...Respondent/Petitioner
2.Senior Accounts Officer,
Office of the Principle Accountant General (A&E) of Tamilnadu,
Chennai.
3.Correspondent,
Bishop Ubagaraswamy Higher Secondary School,
Tiruppur. ... Respondents/2nd and 3rd Respondents
(R2 & R3 Given up)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order passed by this Court dated 16.10.2012 passed in W.P.No.3048 of 2011.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2014
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Special Govt. Pleader (Edn.)
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan for R1
for M/s.C.S.Associates
R2 and R3 - Given Up
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The Writ Appeal has been posted upon a reference being answered by
a Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3674 of 2019 etc. batch dated
29.04.2022. A reference was made to a Full Bench in view of the conflict
between two Division Bench judgments of this Court, one in W.A.(MD)
Nos.701 and 769 of 2015 etc., dated 15.07.2015 (The Director of School
Education and others v. S.Amalraj) holding that a teacher is entitled to a
third set of incentive increment on account of acquiring higher qualification
and the other in W.A.No.1664 of 2016 dated 29.06.2018 (The Director of
School Education and others v. V.Dhanapal) taking a contrary view and
concluding that a teacher, during the entire tenure of service, would be
entitled to only two sets of incentive increments and nothing more.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2014
2.Upon a reference being made, the Full Bench had answered the
issue concluding that the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1664
of 2016 dated 29.06.2018 reflects the correct position of law. After
considering the various Government Orders issued on the subject, the Full
Bench had observed as follows:
“12. A perusal of the above order puts the issue
beyond pale of doubt that as per the policy of the
Government, a teacher for the entire period of his/her
service shall be granted two incentives (four
increments) only. Therefore, there cannot be any
dispute regarding the fact that a Secondary Grade
Teacher or B.T.Assistant or Post Graduate Teacher
during the entire period of service as a teacher, is
entitled to get only two incentive increments. Taking
note of the same only, the Division Bench in
W.A.No.1664 of 2016 dated 29.06.2018 (The Director
of School Education and others v. V.Dhanapal) has
categorically held that the acquisition of an M.Phil.
qualification does not entitle a teacher for a third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2014
incentive increment, in view of G.O.Ms.No.1024,
Education, Science and Technology Department, dated
09.12.1993 restricting the number of incentive
increments to two and therefore, any teacher is not
entitled to a third incentive increment.”
3.An attempt is made by Mr.Sasidharan and Mr.Ganesan, appearing
for some of the teachers to contend that those teachers who have obtained
the additional qualification prior to 09.12.1993, namely the date on which
G.O.Ms.Nos.1023 and 1024 came to be issued would be entitled to
incentive increments, since the number of increments was limited only by
the said two Government Orders. We are unable to accept the said
contention of the learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents
because the Full Bench has categorically held that any teacher during the
entire period of his/her tenure would be entitled only to two sets of incentive
increments.
4.In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Full Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2014
extracted above, we cannot take any other view. Hence the Writ Appeal
filed by the Government will stand allowed and the Writ Petition will stand
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (K.KUMARESH BABU, J.)
10.10.2022
Index: No
Internet: Yes
speaking order
pam
To
1.The Director of School Education,
Chennai - 6.
2.The Joint Director of School Education,
(Thozhilkalvi)
Chennai – 6.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
4.The Senior Accounts Officer,
Office of the Principle Accountant General (A&E) of Tamilnadu,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2014
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
pam
Writ Appeal No.838 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
