Madras High Court
The State Of Tamilnadu vs P.Muneeswari on 22 October, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.A.(MD)No.2084 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.A.(MD)No.2084 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.14784 of 2024
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 006.
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai- 600 006.
3.The Regional Accounts Officer(Audit),
School Education Department,
Madurai Region, Madurai.
4.The Chief Educational Officer,
Dindigul District, Dindigul.
5.The Headmaster,
R.V.L.N.A. Government Higher Secondary School,
Sitharevu-624 228,
Dindigul District. .. Appellants/Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.2084 of 2024
Vs.
P.Muneeswari .. Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying to set aside
the order dated 10.06.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.11743 of 2024 by allowing this
appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.SP.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court quashing the orders of recovery
passed by the 5th appellant against the respondent, the Department has filed this
appeal. The respondent was appointed as Physical Education Director on
21.11.2005 and her services were regularised with effect from 01.06.2006. Even
at the time of her entrance into service she possessed M.P.Ed and M.Phil degree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in Physical Education. She claimed on incentive increment for possession of
M.Phil degree. Since the essential qualification for her appointment was M.P.Ed.,
she was granted the said benefit from 01.06.2006. However, in 2021, the
appellants passed an order directing the recovery of the incentive increment
contending that as per G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 13.10.2016 incentive increment for
M.Phil could be granted only from the date of the said Government Order. This
was subject to challenge.
2. The learned Single Judge on the interpretation of the Government Order
concluded that G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 13.10.2016 would apply only with
reference to grant of second incentive increment and not the first incentive
increment. On the said conclusion, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition and quashed the orders of recovery and hence, this appeal.
3. Mr.SP.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader would rely upon
the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajmohan vs. State of Tamilnadu and
others, in W.P(MD)No.4973 of 2019 dated 16.11.2022 and the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.119 of 2023 dated 14.02.2023 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
support of his submission that incentive increment in M.Phil qualification for
Physical Education Teachers could be granted only from the date of G.O.Ms.No.
177, ie., on 13.10.2016.
3. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contentions of the
learned Special Government Pleader. Incentive increment for Physical Education
teachers for having acquired higher qualification was granted at first on
10.01.1969 under G.O.Ms.No.42. The said Government Order provided that for
acquiring higher qualification, the Physical Education teacher would be entitled
for incentive increments. In respect of the Physical Education Teachers, the
number of incentive increments was restricted was only one and not two as in the
case of other teachers. There were consistent demands by the Physical Education
teachers for grant of second incentive increment. The Government passed the
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.324 dated 25.04.1995 wherein it allowed a
second incentive increment for Physical Education teachers for acquiring higher
qualification in Physical Education. Therefore, on passing of the Government
Order in 1995, Physical Education Teachers also became entitled for second
incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification in physical education.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The respondent was sanctioned with incentive increment even at the time
of her appointment since she had M.P.Ed qualification. Thereafter there was a
consistent demand by the Physical Education Teachers for the second incentive
increment to be granted. This was considered and a direction was issued by the
Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15069 of 2016 dated 25.04.2016 to
consider the representation of Physical Education Teachers. It is resulted in the
Government passing G.O.Ms.No.177 where the right of the Physical Education
Teachers for a second incentive increment was recognized. While doing so, the
Government tabulated the higher qualification in respect of Middle School
Teachers or Physical Education Teachers working in the Middle Schools.. The
qualification was prescribed as Government Teachers certificate for B.P.Ed lower
grade or higher grade. The higher qualification was prescribed as B.T or B.Ed and
for the second incentive increment qualification M.P.Ed, M.Phil or P.G Diploma
in Yoga in respect of Physical Education Teachers. For secondary grade rank, the
qualification prescribed was B.P.Ed or BPES or BMS. The higher qualification
for the first incentive increment was M.P.Ed or M.Phil or PG diploma in Yoga.
For the second incentive increment for higher grade was M.Phil or Ph.D. If the
basic qualification prescribed as M.P.Ed, the higher qualification prescribed was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.Phil or Ph.D. Similar qualifications are also prescribed by the
Director/Directress of Physical Education as Graduate Teachers etc. The clause 3
of the said Government Order reads as follows:
“(iii) Vw;fdnt xU Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ bgw;W
tUk; clw;fy;tp Mrphpah;fSf;F j';fspd;
cah;fy;tpj;jFjpf;fhf ,ju Mrphpah;fSf;F
cs;sJ nghd;W ,uz;lhtJ Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[.
murhiz btspaplg;gLk; ehs;Kjy;
tH';fg;glntz;Lk;/”
5. This Government Order is sought to be taken advantage by the
Government to contend that incentive increment for M.Phil qualification for
Physical Education Teachers was recognised for the first time only under this
Government Order. Observation of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.4973
of 2019 is also to the same effect. With due respect, we are unable to agree with
the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. When the Government introduced
G.O.Ms.No.324 in the year 1995, which clearly states that Physical Education
Teachers would be entitled to the incentive increment for higher qualification in
Physical Education which included M.Phil or Ph.D also. While granting second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
incentive increment while prescribing the eligibility for the second incentive
increment the Government has clarified that these qualifications would make
teachers eligible for second incentive increment, ie., clarified by the clause 3 of
the Government Order which we have already extracted. Therefore, the view of
the Hon'ble Justice G.R.Swaminathan that the entitlement for Physical Education
Teachers on the basis of acquiring M.P.Ed qualification would commence only
after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 13.10.2016 is not correct. Moreover, the
learned Judge need not have gone into the question at all in the said judgment.
Hence, the said judgment related to a person claiming second incentive increment
and not the first incentive increment. This is clear from the judgment of the
Division Bench in Rajmohan v. The State of Tamilnadu, Chennai and others in
W.A(MD).No.119 of 2023, where the Division Bench has taken note of the fact
that the appellant therein was given second incentive increment in the year 1998
for M.Phil which was not then available to the Physical Education Teacher and
hence, the orders of recovery were not sustained. The Division Bench judgment,
in our opinion, will not apply to the facts of the case on hand since the petitioner
herein is not claiming second incentive increment. We, therefore, conclude that
there is no need to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. This Writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
(R.S.M., J.) (S.M., J.)
22.10.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
PJL
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J
PJL
22.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
