K.Sattanathan,19 v. Director Of School
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :05.03.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.17288 of 2018 K.Sattanathan ... Petitioner ..vs..
1.Director of School Education, Chennai - 6.
2.District Educational Officer, Chennai (Central) Chennai - 15.
3.Secretary, Rajah Muthaiah Higher Secondary School, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
... Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.1344/A1/2018 dated 23.04.2018 and quash the same, and direct the 2nd respondent to sanction incentive increment to the petitioner for acquisition of higher qualification i.e. M.Phil and confer conseqential benefits such as revision of pension and other benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan for M/s.C.S.Asociates For Respondent :Mr.A.Raja Perumal Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2
O R D E R
The order of rejection issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 23.04.2018 in respect of the claim of the writ petitioner for incentive increment for possessing M.Phil., Degree is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The writ petitioner was initially joined as Grade I Tamil Pandit. Thereafter, he was absorbed as Grade I Tamil Pandit. The petitioner admits that he was awarded with two incentive increments for possessing the higher qualification of M.A, and M.Ed., degree. He also acquired M.Phil., degree in the year 1994. Thus, the writ petitioner claims that he is entitled for a third incentive increment for possessing M.Phil., degree in the year 1994.
3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that on acquisition of additional educational qualification, incentive increment can be granted in accordance with the Government Orders. Further, the petitioner has also submitted an application for sanctioning incentive increment for having acquired the additional qualification. However, the same has not been considered by the respondents. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 4.The issue in relation to the grant of incentive increment to the teachers working in the Educational Department on acquisition of additional educational qualification, has been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1664 of 2016 and the Judgment was delivered on 29.06.2018.
5. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the relevant Government orders and observed as under in paragraphs Nos.5 to 8 which are extracted as under: "5. Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate would contend that in view of G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 09.12.1993, which restricts the maximum number of incentive increments to two and in view of the fact that the respondent had already been granted two incentive increments, which is equivalent to four advance increments, the respondent will not be entitled any further incentive increment during the period of his service.
A copy of the said G.O. dated 09.12.1993 has been produced before us, the relevant portion of the G.O. reads as follows:
The maximum number of advance increments which a Teacher can get under the Scheme of incentive increments under this Government Order shall be four in his entire service.
(one incentive increment is equivalent to two advance increments). The said position was clarified by the Government in G.O.Ms.285, School
Education Department dated 28.11.2007, which reads as follows:
As per the policy decision of the Government, two incentives (four increments) only may be granted to the teachers for the entire period of their service and hence, accepting the above recommendation of the Director of School Education, for the Headmasters who got only one incentive for M.Ed. qualification during his service as Post Graduate Teachers and promoted to the Headmaster Post and after the promotion as Headmasters, on acquiring M.Phil/Ph.D/PGDTE qualification allowing a second incentive to such Headmasters from the date of the issue of this G.O. is ordered."
6. Of course, the respondent in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition has referred to certain Government Orders as well as the Orders of this Court granting a third set of incentive increments to certain teachers. The said Government Orders have also been produced before us by the learned Government Advocate, those Government orders have been passed in particular cases, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that the higher qualification in those cases are obtained, before 09.12.1993, i.e. the date on which the first G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.1023 was passed restricting the number of incentive increments to a maximum of two, during the service of the teacher. Therefore, we do not think that those Government Orders which have been passed taking note of certain special circumstances could be taken as precedents to enable the respondent to claim an incentive increment, which he would not be entitled to otherwise.
"7. The policy decision of the Government has been consistent to the effect that the teachers who acquire higher qualifications can be granted two incentive increments equivalent to four advance
increments, during the entire tenure of their service. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the respondent has been awarded two incentive increments for acquiring B.Ed. and M.A. qualifications. Therefore, he cannot, as a matter of right, claim the third set of incentive increments for having obtained M.Phil qualification. We are therefore, unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge directing payment of third incentive increment to the respondent.
"8. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the Writ Petition No.22860 of 2014 will stand dismissed.
However in the circumstances without costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
6.Having regard to the above, now, it is made clear that the Teachers including the writ petitioner, who acquired higher qualifications, can be granted two incentive increments equivalent to four advance increments, during the entire tenure of their service. Thus, the respondents are bound to follow the Government order referred to in the Judgment as well as the above said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, for the purpose of grant of the incentive increments to the writ petitioner.
7.In this view of the matter, if already two incentive increments are granted, the writ petitioner is not entitled for further two incentive increments in their service, as per the Government order and as per the Hon'ble Division Bench. It is made clear that if any excess payment was paid, it is left open to the authorities to recover the same in accordance with law. 8.With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
To 1.Director of School Education, Chennai - 6.
2.District Educational Officer, Chennai (Central) Chennai - 15.
3.Secretary, Rajah Muthaiah Higher Secondary School, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
+1cc to the Government Pleader sr.20980.
W.P.No.17288 of 2018 rgn[co] srg 22/04/2019