Madras High Court
M.Saras Banu vs The District Educational Officer on 22 October, 2024
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P(MD)No.21038 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.21038 of 2022
M.Saras Banu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Block Education Officer,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Headmaster,
Panchayat Union Primary School,
A.Kachan, Nainarkovil Union,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second
respondent to consider for 1st incentive increment by accepting the proposal,
dated 19.11.2019, which has been rectified subsequent to the return of proposal
for some clarification, within the time fixed by this Court and pass such other
and further orders as this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P(MD)No.21038 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus to the second
respondent to consider for first incentive increment by accepting the proposal,
dated 19.11.2019, which has been rectified subsequent to the return of proposal
for some clarification.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed her
diploma in Teacher Training Education in 2007 and after getting selected into
Government Service joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union
Primary School, Vandal Village, Nainarkovil Block on 26.06.2014 and at
present, she is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union
Primary School, A.Kachan Village, Paramakudi Taluk from 26.06.2014. After
getting prior permission from the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Nainarkovil, the present second respondent the petitioner has completed her
B.Sc., Maths through Annamalai University from 2013 to 2016 and she has
completed her B.Ed., through Alagappa University in the year 2017 and 2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
after getting prior permission from the second respondent. After completing
B.Ed., the petitioner has applied for the first incentive increment through the
third respondent with all relevant documents on 19.11.2019. Subsequently, the
second respondent has returned the proposal on 13.12.2019 by seeking
clarification and the same has been answered through the third respondent and
the same has neither been rejected by a speaking order by receiving the
proposal nor been granted incentive. Hence, the present writ petition.
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
official 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 on 22.08.2019 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
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 she is entitled for
the same since she has studied the B.Ed., degree course only after approving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
7. The counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent on 30.09.2022.
As per the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the relevant portion is
reads as follows:
"6. It is submitted that as per G.O(Ms)No.37 that the
previous orders were not issued, then the employee is not
eligible for sanction of any advance increments for passing
higher qualification irrespective of the post held / degree
acquired. In the present case there is no previous orders
sanctioning incentive increment for higher qualification was
passed to the petitioner. Hence, as per G.O(Ms)No.37 under
Sub Clause 6(vi) the petitioner is not entitled to the incentive
increment for higher studies.
7. It is submitted that the Government has taken a
policy decision to stop giving incentive increments. The
G.O(Ms)No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-
IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020 wherein, the decision to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
grant incentive increment has been done away. The
G.O(Ms)No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-
IV) Department, dated 15.10.2020 wherein, it has been
clarified the date from which the Government Order in
G.O(Ms)No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-
IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020 came into force. These
Government Orders have come into force for the period after
G.O(Ms)No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-
IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020 was issued."
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
12. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official
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 second respondent is directed to grant first
incentive increment to the petitioner based on the judgments of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
To
1.The District Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Block Education Officer,
Nainarkovil,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Headmaster,
Panchayat Union Primary School,
A.Kachan, Nainarkovil Union,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
BTR
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
