Madras High Court

J.Shanthi Pushpakumari vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 10 January, 2023

                                                                        W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 10.01.2023

                                                     CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                             W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020
                                                        and
                                        W.M.P(MD) Nos.2317 & 2348 of 2020


                     J.Shanthi Pushpakumari
                     Headmistress
                      TELC Primary School,
                       Venkittankurichi,
                       Paramakudi,
                       Ramanathapuram District.                                : Petitioner


                                                        Vs.


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

                     2.The District Educational Officer,
                       O/o.The District Educational Office,
                        Paramakudi,
                       Ramanathapuram District.



                     _________
                     Page 1 of 11


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020

                     3.The Block Educational Officer - I,
                       O/o.The Block Educational Office,
                       Paramakudi - SB401,
                       Ramanathapuram District.

                     4.The Correspondent
                       TELC Primary School,
                       Venkittankurichi,
                       Paramakudi,
                       Ramanathapuram District.                                       : Respondents


                     PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

                     praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the

                     records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent

                     in A.The.MU.No.1845/A2/2019 dated 10.9.2019 and quash the same as

                     illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to pay the incentive

                     increments to the petitioner for the higher educational qualification of MA.

                     Degree acquired by the petitioner.


                                  For Petitioner    : Mr.S.Mohamed Suhail,
                                                      for M/s.Ajmal Associates

                                  For Respondents   : Mr.S.Saji Bino - for R1 to R3
                                                     Special Government Pleader



                     _________
                     Page 2 of 11


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020

                                                       ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned

proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in A.The.MU.No.1845/A2/2019

dated 10.9.2019 and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the

incentive increments to the petitioner for the higher educational

qualification of MA. Degree acquired by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade

Teacher on 29.04.1998 in the School run by TELC. At the time of joining

service, the petitioner was possessed with the qualification in B.A. History

and B.Ed degree. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Headmistress in

the year 2006, in the very same school and the petitioner had been working

to the utmost satisfaction of the Superiors and during his tenure of

employment, the petitioner acquired M.A. History in the year 2013, after

getting appropriate approval from the Management as well as the

Educational Authorities. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a representation

to the third respondent for grant of incentive increment for acquiring higher

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020

qualification. However, the third respondent has passed the impugned order,

dated 10.09.2019 rejecting the proposal of the School for granting incentive

increment to the petitioner on the ground that the teacher who possessed

with qualification B.T Assistant qualification appointed as Secondary Grade

Teacher, is not entitled to incentive increment.

3. Further, the case of the petitioner is that admittedly the

petitioner has given an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner would

not claim any incentive increment for possession of B.A. and B.Ed. degree.

However, the petitioner is entitled for incentive increment for acquiring

higher qualification. Hence the rejection order passed by the respondent is

bad in law. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

admittedly at the time of appointment, the petitioner had forgo the incentive

increment for possessing qualification BA and B.Ed degree and the same

cannot be put against the petitioner while, she acquiring the higher

qualification of M.A. and hence, the petitioner is entitled to receive

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020

incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification prior to 2019 and the

petitioner acquired higher qualification in the year 2000 which cannot be

denied and the issue that arises in the present writ petition is already

covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)

No.895 of 2013 etc., batch. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the writ

petition.

5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing

for the respondents submitted that at the time of petitioner's appointment in

the Education department, she possessed B.A. Degree in History subject and

later on, during her service, she passed M.A. degree. Earlier the petitioner

approached the respondents sought for additional incentive increment for

higher qualification and the same was rejected stating that the petitioner had

already forgo the incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification.

Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020

7. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the

petitioner had possessed the qualification of B.A. History and B.Ed.

degree. Earlier, she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher with B.T

qualified teachers. At the time of entering into the service, the petitioner has

given willingness to forgo the incentive increments for B.A. History and

B.Ed degree and subsequently, the petitioner acquired M.A. History, for

which, she made a claim for awarding incentive increment as per

Government Order. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the

petitioner had already forgo the incentive increment for acquiring higher

qualification and thereafter the present writ petition is filed. It is admitted

that at the time of appointment, the petitioner had forgo the incentive

increments for acquiring B.A. B.Ed. degrees and after entering into service,

the petitioner acquired higher qualification in M.A. History and M.A.

History is related to the subject of Social Science. Hence, the respondents

cannot deny that the higher qualification is not related to the subjects for

class 1 to 5. However, the only ground on which, the petitioner's claim was

rejected is that the petitioner had already forgo the incentive increment for

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020

acquiring higher qualification, however, that is not applicable to the

petitioner, since she forgo the incentive increment only for B.A. and B.Ed.

and not for M.A. degree and subsequent to his employment, she acquired

M.A. degree and hence, she is entitled for incentive increment as per the

Government Order invoked and the similar issue came up for consideration

before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.895 of 2013 and

the relevant portion of the order reads as follows :

"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

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020

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 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."

In view of the categorical decision rendered by the Division Bench of this

Court, the same benefit shall also be extended to the petitioner.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned

order is set aside. The respondent is directed to grant incentive increment to

the petitioner for acquiring higher qualification in M.A. degree, within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

10.01.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2719 of 2020