Madras High Court
The Director Of Elementary Education vs P.Arockiasamy on 23 November, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.655 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.11.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.655 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.9248 of 2020
1.The Director of Elementary Education
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer
Thirunavalur, Villupuram District. ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.P.Arockiasamy
(Retired Headmaster)
Mathankulam Street, Irunthai Post
Ulunthoorpettai Taluk
Villupuram District.
2.The Correspondent
R.C.Primary School, Mathampattu
Thiruvennainallur, Villupuram.
3.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu
Chennai 600 018.
4.The Manager
R.C.Primary and Middle School
Cuddalore-607 001. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order in
W.P.No.25000 of 2003 dated 18.12.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
W.A.No.655 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.Jim Raj Milton - for R1
Sr.A.Arul Mary
for M/s.Fr.Xavier Associates - for R2 and R4
Ms.T.S.Selvarani
Standing Counsel - for R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This appeal has been directed against the order passed by the writ Court
dated 18.12.2017 made in W.P.No.25000 of 2003.
2. That the first respondent in the appeal was working as Teacher in the
second respondent school and subsequently promoted as Headmaster of the school
and he retired on superannuation on 31.05.1999. Since the first respondent had
been in the same post for 30 years, as per G.O.Ms.No.562, Finance (PC) Department
dated 28.09.1998, he is entitled to get a special bonus by way of increment. In fact,
that was allowed already by the competent authority. However, by order dated
31.03.1999, the competent authority ie., the Additional Assistant Education Officer
for Primary Education, Thiruvennainallur, had cancelled or withdrawn the said
concession extended to the first respondent.
3. It is further to be noted that, before the first respondent superannuated in
the 1999, while he was working in the year 1996, he had acquired higher
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
qualification of M.A., and B.Ed., degree. Therefore, in order to get two advance
incentive increments for having acquired higher qualification, the first respondent
teacher had made several requests and representations to the appellant Department
and one such request was forwarded by the second respondent school to the
Educational Officer on 12.10.2007, which reads thus,
"nkny Fwpg;gplg;gl;l jpU/Mnuhf;fparhkp. jiyik Mrpupah;.
khjg;gl;L. 31/05/1999 khiynahL Xa;t[ bgw;W tpl;lhh;/ ,th; Xa;t[
bgWk; Kd;dnu M.A., B.Ed., njh;r;rp bgw;wjw;;fhd 4 Cf;f Cjpa
cah;t[k;. bkhj;j gzpf;fhyk; jiyik Mrphpauhfnt 30
Mz;Lfs; Koe;jjw;f;fhd xU nghd!; Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[k;
bgwhknyna Xa;t[ bgw;W tpl;lhh;/ fUiz Th;e;J ,tUf;F
mspf;fg;glntz;oa gz gyd;fs; mj;jida[k; eph;thfk;
ghpe;Jiuapd; mog;gilapy; tpjpKiwfSf;F cl;gl;L mspj;jpl
ntz;Lkha; ,jd; K:yk; ghpe;Jiu bra;ag;gLfpwJ/"
4. When the request of the first respondent for seeking two advance incentive
increment for having acquired higher qualification was pending consideration since
the order dated 31.03.1999 was issued, ie., two months prior to the superannuation
of the first respondent, he was constrained to challenge the said order dated
31.03.1999 along with a prayer to seek for advance incentive increment for having
acquired two higher educational qualification viz., M.A., and B.Ed.
5. The said writ petition since had been filed with the aforesaid prayer, having
been heard, was allowed by the learned Judge through the order impugned dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18.12.2017, whereby the order dated 31.03.1999 was set aside. Consequently, a
direction was given to give the 30 years bonus by way of incentive increment as well
as two advance increment for having acquired higher qualification from the date of
acquiring the qualification and therefore, calculating the said amount, the pension
payable to the first respondent herein / petitioner therein shall be revised. That was
the order passed by the learned Judge, against which the present appeal has been
directed.
6. Assailing the said order, Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that, though originally the 30
years bonus increment was extended to the first respondent, since certain
clarification was sought for in G.O.Ms.No.562, it became necessitated for the
authority concerned to withdraw the said extension of the benefit. When that was
questioned before the writ Court, additionally the writ petitioner / first respondent
has sought for further relief seeking advance incentive increments for the two higher
qualification acquired by him from the date of acquiring the qualification.
7. The learned Judge while dealing with the said issue in the order impugned,
has allowed the writ petition in toto by setting aside the order dated 31.03.1999 and
also directed to extend the benefit of incentive increment for having passed M.A.,
and B.Ed., degree from 25.09.1996.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. In this context, the learned Special Government Pleader would rely upon
G.O.Ms.No.307, School Education Department dated 15.12.2000, under which those
advance incentive increments for having acquired higher qualification has been
provided from the date of issuance of the Government Order and not from the date
of acquiring of the higher qualification.
9. Outside the scope of G.O.Ms.No.307, no such increment can be extended
or provided for having acquired higher qualification. Therefore, within the meaning
of G.O.Ms.No.307, if at all the benefit had to be extended that should be only
extended from the date of the Government Order viz., 15.12.2000 and not from the
date of acquiring the qualification. Therefore, to that extent the impugned order
passed by the learned Judge is erroneous, learned Special Government Pleader
contended.
10. He would also submit that the first respondent was initially appointed on
01.07.1965. Thereafter, Selection Grade was given to him on 01.07.1975 and
Special Grade was conferred on 01.07.1985 and promotion was given as Primary
School Headmaster with effect from 01.06.1988. He retired from service in 1999.
Therefore, it must be noted that, for getting such a bonus for having stagnated in
single post for 30 years and more, the incumbent must have been in single post for
30 years. Here, if at all the first respondent had been continuing in the post from
01.07.1965, the 30 years period would be completed in 1995, but before which ie.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in 1988 he was given the post of Primary School Headmaster. Therefore, it cannot
be stated that he has stagnated in single post for 30 years. Citing all these reasons,
the learned Special Government Pleader seeks the indulgence of this Court against
the impugned order.
11. We have also heard Mr.Jim Raj Milton, learned counsel for the first
respondent, Sr.A.Arul Mary for M/s.Fr.Xavier Associates, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 2 and 4 and Ms.T.S.Selvarani, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the third respondent.
12. Learned counsels for the respondents would submit that, though on
01.07.1965 the first respondent was appointed in the second respondent school, at
the time of the initial appointment itself he was appointed only as a Headmaster, the
reason being that, in those days these kind of schools were managed or manned
only by a single teacher with the concept of 'single teacher school'.
13. Therefore, single teacher would act as Headmaster also as there could be
no further Headmaster available in those single teacher schools. When that being
so, for all practical purposes since the first respondent had been appointed and has
been acting upon only as Headmaster of the school concerned right from
01.07.1965, assuming that functionally further promotion was given on 01.06.1988
when the school has been expanded after 25 years or more, it cannot be stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the services rendered by him for nearly about 30 years from 1965 as Headmaster of
the primary school cannot be calculated for the purpose of 30 years service in single
post for extending the benefit of the bonus.
14. Insofar as the advance incentive increment is concerned, the learned
counsel for the respondents would contend that G.O.Ms.No.307 though has come
into effect only on 15.12.2000, before which if a qualification is acquired, those
teachers who have acquired the higher qualification were entitled to get such
incentive increment from the date of acquiring the qualification. This position has
been subsequently reiterated in various Government Orders. First such Government
Order that was issued is G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education Department dated
17.02.2006 and subsequently G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education Department dated
30.04.2007 was issued, under which the necessary rule has been amended for the
sanction of incentive increment as ordered in the said G.O.Ms.No.29, School
Education Department dated 17.02.2006. Therefore, under these Government
Orders, as per the rule, whoever is eligible for advance incentive increment would be
eligible to get the same from the date of acquiring the higher qualification.
Therefore, the learned counsels would contend that there is absolutely no infirmity in
the order passed by the writ court directing the appellant Department to extend the
benefit of advance incentive increment from the date of acquiring the qualification
and, in this case since the first respondent had acquired qualification in the year
1996, that is what has been allowed by the learned Judge through the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order. Therefore, that does not warrant any interference from this court, they
contended.
15. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for both sides and have perused the materials placed before us.
16. Insofar as the first issue with regard to the order dated 31.03.1999 is
concerned, as has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, the first
respondent was appointed initially on 01.07.1965 in a 'single teacher school'.
Therefore, at that time he was appointed in the school as Teacher-cum-Headmaster
and that position continued for all these years. Though on 01.06.1998 he had been
given a regular promotion to the post of Headmaster as a functional position, that
will not alter the position of the service rendered by him all these years as
Headmaster. Therefore, for all practical purposes especially for the purpose of
G.O.Ms.No.562 dated 28.02.1998, the services of the first respondent can be taken
as service in the single post ie., Primary School Headmaster for 30 years and more.
Therefore, he is eligible to get such bonus for 30 years stagnation by way of
increment. To that extent, the cancellation that has been made through the order
dated 31.03.1999 is bad in law. Therefore, the learned Judge set aside the order, of
course rightly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. Insofar as the advance incentive increment which was sought for, for
having acquired higher qualification of M.A., and B.Ed., is concerned, though such a
benefit can be extended as per G.O.Ms.No.307 dated 15.12.2000 under which the
financial benefit can be extended only prospectively from the date of the
Government Order ie., with effect from 15.12.2000, subsequent Government Orders
issued in this regard ie., G.O.Ms.No.29, School Education Department dated
17.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.100, School Education Department dated 30.04.2007,
amended the rule enabling the teachers who have acquired higher qualification, to
get such incentive increment to a maximum of two increments from the date of
acquiring such qualification. Here in the case in hand, the first respondent since has
acquired the higher qualification sometime in 1996, from that date he is entitled to
get such advance incentive increment. Therefore, to that extent also the direction
given by the learned Judge in the impugned order cannot be found fault with.
18. In that view of the matter, we do not feel that the impugned order is
liable to be interfered with and it has to be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned
order is sustained and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(R.S.K., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
23.11.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
KST
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Correspondent
R.C.Primary School, Mathampattu
Thiruvennainallur, Villupuram.
2.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu
Chennai 600 018.
3.The Manager
R.C.Primary and Middle School
Cuddalore-607 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
KST
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
