Madras High Court
S.Muthaiah vs The Chief Educational Officer on 22 October, 2024
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P(MD)No.22353 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P(MD)No.22353 of 2022
S.Muthaiah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Pudukottai District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Illuppur,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Block Educational Officer,
Viralimalai,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
sanction the incentive increment for B.Ed., qualification from 02.06.2019 and
confer all consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
W.P(MD)No.22353 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus to the
respondents to sanction the incentive increment for B.Ed., qualification from
02.06.2019 and confer all consequential benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a
Secondary Grade Teacher on 19.02.1999. The petitioner obtained permission to
study B.Sc., on 02.12.2011 and passed B.Sc., in the year 2015. He obtained
permission to study B.Ed., on 07.04.2017 and passed B.Ed., in the year 2019.
As per the Scheme, he is entitled for one set of incentive increment for the
higher qualification of B.Ed. Therefore, he made request to the respondents to
sanction the incentive increment for B.Ed. The petitioner has also approached
the respondents in person on several occasions to sanction the incentive
increment. The petitioner is requesting the respondents to sanction the first set
of incentive increment. Therefore, there is no impediment to sanction the same.
Since his request not was not considered, the petitioner has come forward with
the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has completed B.Ed., degree after obtaining permission from the
competent authority and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents mainly contend that as per G.O(Ms)No.37, Personnel and
Administration Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020, the decision to
grant incentive increment has been done away. In the instant case, the petitioner
has completed B.Ed., degree in June 2019 much prior to the issuance of the
above said Government Order.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a similar case in
W.A(MD)No.975 of 2024, dated 12.06.2024 and the relevant paragraph of the
same is extracted and reads as follows:
"9.G.O(Ms)No.37 does not operate retrospectively and
the purposive interpretation of Clause 6(vi) in the
Government Order can only be that the Teachers, who had all
acquired the higher qualification prior to the issuance of the
Government Order and if otherwise qualified are eligible for
sanction of the incentive increment. If the interpretation made
by the learned Additional Government Pleader is to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accepted, then the very object of the inclusion of clause 6(vi)
in the Government Order becomes redundant. As such, we
have no hesitation to hold that the Teachers, who, after
obtaining necessary permission from the authorities, had
acquired higher qualification, ie., wherever the degrees had
been awarded prior to issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.37, dated
10.03.2020, are entitled for advance increment for the higher
qualification, if it is within the limit of two incentive
increments in their career.
10.In the instant case, admittedly, the first respondent
after obtaining necessary permission had acquired M.A.
(Tamil) degree as early as on 18.05.2019, which is well
before the issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.37, dated 10.03.2020 and
the first respondent had been awarded only one incentive
increment for the B.Ed., course. Hence, the first respondent is
entitled for the sanctioning of second advance increment for
the M.A.(Tamil) degree obtained by her, as covered under
Clause-6(vi) of G.O(Ms)No.37. In such view of the matter, we
find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Judge and the order of the Writ Court is accordingly,
sustained."
5. He has also relied on another judgment of the same Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court following the order passed in W.A(MD)No.975 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the writ appeal is W.A(MD)No.1052 of 2024, dated 21.06.2024 and the
relevant paragraph of the same is extracted and reads as follows:
7.Be that as it may, in the meantime, the Government
issued G.O.(Ms)No.37, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020, withdrawing
and cancelling the incentive increment scheme. However,
Clause-6(vi) of G.O.(Ms)No.37, protects the Teachers, who
had already acquired the qualification prior to the issuance
of the Government Order by the cancellation of the scheme
and they are entitled for the award of incentive increment.
Clause 6(vi) is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
“6.....
I....
VI.The case 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 the previous orders issued, if any, by the
administrative department concerned and with
reference to the posts specified in that order and
if he is 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, they are not eligible for
sanction of any advance increments for passing
higher qualification irrespective of the post
held/degrees acquired.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.Therefore, already we have held that all the persons, who
had been acquired additional qualification prior to issuance
of G.O.(Ms)No.37, if it is within two incentive increment, they
are entitled for grant of incentive increment. Further, the
clarification issued in G.O.(Ms)No.95, had been dealt with by
the learned Judge and having found that G.O.(Ms)No.37
cannot operate retrospectively, the benefits granted under the
incentive scheme prior to the Government Order, cannot be
taken back and therefore, the similarly placed persons cannot
be discriminated and treated unequally. As, already it has
been decided that G.O.(Ms)No.37, does not have a
retrospective effect and the employees, who had acquired
additional qualification prior to issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.37,
are entitled for the grant of incentive increment, the
clarificatory order issued in G.O.(Ms)No.95, can in no way
affect the rights of the concerned persons, who had acquired
additional qualification and the right accrued on them cannot
be tinkered with or taken away and the benefits cannot be
denied through this clarificatory order.
12.In the instant case, the Writ Petitioner has, admittedly,
acquired additional qualification by getting proper
permission prior to issuance of G.O.(Ms)No.37 and it is his
second incentive increment and in fact, the same also had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been considered and granted by the appellants by
proceedings, dated 19.12.2019 with effect from 01.07.2017.
Hence, the argument of the appellants that in view of the
clarificatory order, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled for the
incentive increment, cannot be sustained and accordingly,
rejected. The learned Judge, had rightly, arrived at a
conclusion that the Writ Petitioner is entitled for the grant of
second incentive increment and the same cannot be denied in
view of G.O.(Ms)No. 37 and G.O.(Ms)No.95, which needs no
interference and accordingly, sustained.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that
the writ petitioner seeking only first incentive increment and he is entitled for
the same since he has studied the B.Ed., degree course only after approving the
prior permission of the authorities and as per the judgments of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court, once the permission is obtained, the first
incentive increment cannot be denied by the respondents in view of the
G.O(Ms)No.37, dated 10.03.2022 since the petitioner has completed the course
much prior to that (i.e.,) in the year 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent on
29.09.2022. As per the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the
relevant portion is reads as follows:
"4. It is submitted that in the meantime, the
Government issued G.O(Ms)No.37 Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department dated
10.03.2020 cancelling the scheme of award of incentive
increments. It is pertinent to submit that although the
petitioner passed the B.Ed., degree in the year 2019, he made
request for granting incentive increments only on 07.10.2020
for the reasons best known for him. The Clause 6(vi) of
G.O(Ms)No.37 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-
IV) Department dated 10.03.2020 specifies that the cases of
government servants who have acquired higher qualifications
prior to the issue of this general order, and not sanctioned
with advance increments be examined separately as per the
previous orders issued, if any by the administrative
department concerned and with reference to the posts
specified in that order and if he is otherwise qualified, then
the advance increment may be sanctioned by the
administrative department concerned after obtaining
concurrence of Finance Department. If no previous order
were issued by any of the department concerned, then they
are not eligible for sanction of any advance increments for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passing higher qualification irrespective of the post held /
degree obtained. In the sub clause (vii) it has been held that
No fresh / further proposals will be entertained by Personnel
and Administrative Reforms Department on this issued in
future. In the instant case, the petitioner made his request
only on 07.10.2020 and hence the question of granting any
incentive increment does not arise. Accordingly the request of
the petitioner is not sustainable in law.
5. It is submitted that as per the Clarification issued in
G.O(Ms)No.116 Personnel and Administrative Department
(FR-IV) dated 16.10.2020, it has been stated in para 4(7) that
instructions in para 6 (vi) and (vii) of G.O(Ms)No.37
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department
dated 10.03.2020 has to be followed in which it has been held
that if no previous order 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 obtained. In the sub
clause (vii) it has been held that No fresh / further proposals
will be entertained by the Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department on this issue in future. It is pertinent to
submit that the petitioner has made his request only on
07.10.2020 very belatedly. Accordingly the prayer of the
petitioner is not sustainable in law and the writ petition is not
maintainable in law and is liable to dismissed."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
submitted that the review application has been filed against the order passed by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.975 of 2024, dated
12.06.2024. The review application has been filed to review the order passed in
the writ appeal on 23.08.2024 in C.M.P(MD)No.11590 of 2024 and the same is
pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
10. The review has been filed with the C.M.P(MD)No.11590 of 2024 to
condone the delay. Only after the delay is condoned, the main review
application would be numbered by the Registry.
11. The review application is only in SR stage and the same is not even
numbered. Hence, the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
still holds good and the respondents are bound by the above judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents further drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.1202 of 2023, dated
15.11.2023, wherein, in that case, it is pertaining to the grant of third
incentive increment. Hence, the same is not applicable to the case on hand,
since it is pertaining to the grant of first incentive increment to the
petitioner herein.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ
petition stands allowed and the third respondent is directed to grant first
incentive increment to the petitioner based on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court stated supra, within a period of eight (8) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to
costs.
22.10.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
BTR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Pudukottai District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Illuppur,
Pudukottai District.
3.The Block Educational Officer,
Viralimalai,
Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
BTR
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
