Madras High Court
The Secretary To The Government vs D.Ramasamy on 10 October, 2022
Writ Appeal Nos.1355 and 1088 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 Nos.1355 and 1088 of 2014
1.The Secretary to the Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9. ...Appellant in both Appeals
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-6.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Nagapattinam,
Nagapattinam District
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Vedaranyam,
Vedaranyan Taluk,
Nagapattinam District. ...Appellant in W.A.No.1355/2014
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai-600 006
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. ...Appellants in W.A.No.1088/2014
Vs.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.1355 and 1088 of 2014
D.Ramasamy ...Respondent in W.A.No.1355/2014
S.Mukundaiah ...Respondent in W.A.No.1088/2014
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent,
against the orders passed by this Court dated 13.12.2013 and 16.12.2013
made in W.P.No.33863 of 2013 and W.P.No.33999 of 2013 respectively.
For Appellants in both Appeals : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Special Govt. Pleader (Edn.)
For Respondent in
W.A.No.1355 of 2014 : Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi
For Respondent in
W.A.No.1088 of 2014 : Mr.R.Suresh
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The Writ Appeals have 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
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.1355 and 1088 of 2014
concluding that a teacher, during the entire tenure of service, would be
entitled to only two sets of incentive increments and nothing more.
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
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.1355 and 1088 of 2014
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
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.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.1355 and 1088 of 2014
4.In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Full Bench
extracted above, we cannot take any other view. Hence the Writ Appeals
filed by the Government will stand allowed and the Writ Petitions will stand
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (K.KUMARESH BABU, J.)
10.10.2022
Index: No
Internet: Yes
speaking order
pam
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Vedaranyam, Vedaranyan Taluk, Nagapattinam District.
5.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
6.The Chief Educational Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal Nos.1355 and 1088 of 2014
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
pam
Writ Appeal Nos.1355 and 1088 of 2014
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
