Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs M.P.Ravindranath on 4 June, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
WA No.1763 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WA No.1763 of 2022
1.The Commissioner,
Directorate of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chengalpattu District
Chengalpattu 603 001
3.The District Educational Officer,
St.Thomas Mount Education District,
Chrompet, Chennai 44 ... Appellants
versus
1.M.P.Ravindranath
2.The Correspondent,
Aringnar Anna Cantonment High School,
Pallavaram, Chennai 600 043 ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1763 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed against the order of the learned Single Judge
in WP No.17472 of 2021 dated 06.09.2021.
For the Appellants : Mr.J.C.Durai Raj,
Additional Government Pleader
For the Respondents : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan,
for the first respondent
Mr.C.Mohan,
for M/s.King & Partridge,
for the second respondent
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
The Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single
Judge in WP No.17472 of 2021 dated 06.09.2021.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. The first respondent was appointed as Physical Education
Teacher in the year 2001 in the second respondent school based on his
B.P.Ed Degree qualification. His appointment was duly approved by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Government. He continued to work in the same post for about 20 years.
Subsequently, since the first respondent had acquired M.P.Ed. Degree higher
qualification, he was granted with incentive increment for the same. As per
the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.42, School Education Department, dated
10.01.1969, a teacher is entitled for incentive increment for having acquired
higher qualification. Subsequently, the Government issued orders in
G.O.Ms.No.1024, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated
09.12.1993, as per which, a teacher is eligible for two sets of incentive
increment based on higher qualification in his entire service career.
2.2. Subsequently, the first respondent acquired M.Phil Degree
qualification in the year 2006. He studied M.Phil degree through distance
education in Annamalai University, after submitting representation to the
School Management to grant permission to undergo higher studies.
Thereafter, he submitted a representation for sanctioning of incentive
increment, which remains to be second set of incentive increment, as per
G.O.Ms.1024 dated 09.12.1993. A proposal was forwarded by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent School to the District Educational Officer/third appellant and the
same was returned by stating that the first respondent has studied M.Phil
Degree without getting permission from the Department. Thereafter, since
no prior permission was obtained from the Department, he was issued with
order of Censure vide proceedings of the respondent School dated
01.12.2018. Thereafter, the first respondent made a representation dated
27.02.2021 to the District Educational Officer/third appellant and the third
appellant has sent a proposal to the Chief Education Officer/second
appellant for sanction of incentive increment to the first respondent. The
Chief Educational Officer/second appellant had rejected the proposal vide
proceedings dated 30.07.2021, by stating that no prior permission was
obtained from the Head of the Department prior to acquiring M.Phil., degree
qualification. Challenging the said order, the first respondent filed the
instant writ petition. The writ court, by order dated 06.09.2021, allowed the
writ petition with the following observations:
''13. The subsequent decision to withdraw
the incentive cannot be denied to the
disadvantage of the petitioner, based on a
reading of first part of paragraph 2 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.O.Ms.No.37 Personnel and Administrative
Reform dated 10.03.2020. Therefore, the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is
liable to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed.
The respondents are therefore directed to
sanction the incentive increments available to the
petitioner within period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. This writ
petition is allowed with consequential relief to the
petitioner.''
2.3. Challenging the said order, the appellant Department has
preferred the present intra-court appeal.
3. The short point involved in the present writ appeal is whether the
first respondent is eligible for second incentive increment for acquiring
higher qualification.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant
Department submits that the first respondent herein had completed M.Phil.
degree. The third appellant sent proposal to the second appellant for
sanction of incentive increment for having acquired M.Phil Degree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
qualification. The said proposal was rejected by the second appellant/Chief
Educational Officer by relying upon the Government Order in GO Ms.
No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 10.03.2020. The
relevant portion of the Government Order is extracted hereunder:
''i)As a policy decision, the scheme of
sanction of advance increment for acquiring
higher qualification in all departments and all
orders issued by all departments for sanction of
advance increment for possessing higher
qualification, as a whole be cancelled/dispensed
with immediate effect.
ii)The cases of Government Servants who
have acquired higher qualification prior to issue
of this general order and not sanctioned with
advance increments be examined separately as
per previous orders issued, if any, by the
administrative department concerned and not with
reference to the otherwise qualified, then the
advance increment may be sanctioned by the
administrative department concerned after
obtaining concurrence of Finance Department. If
no previous orders were issued by any of the
department concerned, then they are not eligible
for sanction of any advance increments for
passing higher qualification irrespective of the
post held/degree acquired."
5. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submits that in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Clause 2 of the aforesaid Government Order, it is clearly stated that if no
previous orders were issued by any of the department concerned, then they
are not eligible for sanction of any advance increments for passing higher
qualification irrespective of the post held/degree acquired. The Chief
Educational Officer/second appellant, considering the aforesaid GO, rejected
the claim of the first respondent. The learned Single Judge, without
considering the aforesaid ground raised by the appellant Department has
allowed the writ petition based on a reading of first part of paragraph 2 of
G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 10.03.2020. Hence, he seeks to set aside the order of
the Writ Court.
6. Learned counsel for the first respondent reiterated the stand taken
by the writ court and seeks to dismiss the writ appeal.
7. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.
8. The Clause 2 of GO Ms. No.37, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms dated 10.03.2020 clearly states that if no previous orders were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
issued by any of the department concerned, then they are not eligible for
sanction of any advance increments for passing higher qualification
irrespective of the post held/degree. In the present case, the first respondent
herein has acquired M.Phil Degree in the year 2006 but did not obtain prior
approval from the Department. In such circumstances, the first respondent
had approached the Department seeking to grant advance increment for
acquiring higher qualification of M.Phil Degree on 27.02.2021, pursuant to
the said Government Order. The Chief Educational Officer/second
respondent had rejected the proposal in the light of the aforesaid
Government Order.
9. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned
counsel for the first respondent that the first respondent herein has not
challenged the aforesaid Government Order. Since the first respondent has
not challenged the aforesaid Government Order, the decision of the
Government is binding on the first respondent herein. Therefore, there is
force in the contention of the appellant Department. Hence, we are inclined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to interfere with the order dated 06.09.2021 of the learned Single Judge and
it is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.
10. In fine, the writ appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, CMP No.12889 of 2022 is closed.
[D.K.K., J.] [K.B., J.]
04.06.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
mrn
To
1.The Commissioner,
Directorate of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Chengalpattu District
Chengalpattu 603 001
3.The District Educational Officer,
St.Thomas Mount Education District,
Chrompet, Chennai 44
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
(mrn)
04.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
