Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs V.Premamery on 6 October, 2023
W.A.(MD).No.468 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD).No.468 of 2016
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.3296 of 2016
1.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Ananthoor,
Ramanathapuram District. .. Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
V.Premamery ..Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside
the order dated 21.01.2016 in W.P.(MD).No.1311 of 2016.
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.468 of 2016
For Appellants : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The issue raised in the present Writ Appeal is whether a Teacher/BT
Assistant is entitled to get third incentive increment for possessing
additional educational qualification.
2. Right from the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.42,
Education Department dated 10.01.1969, the Government regulated the
scheme of grant of incentive increment for the teaching staffs in the
Education Department. The eligibility criteria are fixed based on the
additional educational qualification acquired by the teaching staffs in
Education Department and it's relevance with reference to the post they are
holding. Therefore, grant of incentive increment is to be considered
scrupulously in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated under
the scheme of incentive increment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.468 of 2016
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants made a submission that in the present case, third incentive
increment was sought for by the respondent, which was rejected by the
Government. The learned Single Judge considered the case of the
respondent and granted third incentive increment, which is contrary to the
scheme of incentive increment approved by the Government and also the
judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, School
Education Department and others Vs. R.Subramani, dated 29.04.2022,
passed in W.A.Nos.3674 of 2019 etc., batch.
4. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court has
ruled that a Teacher is eligible to get two incentive increments in the entire
service. The said two incentive increments are to be granted in compliance
with the terms and conditions stipulated. However, third incentive
increment has not been contemplated under the scheme and thus, the order
of the learned Single Judge in the present case is running counter to the
principles settled by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.468 of 2016
5. Accordingly, the order dated 21.01.2016 passed in W.P.(MD).
No.1311 of 2016 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition stands closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.)
06.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
To
1.The Director of School Education,
Chennai – 6.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Headmaster,
Government Higher Secondary School,
Ananthoor,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD).No.468 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
W.A.(MD).No.468 of 2016
06.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
