Kavitha P v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 20.08.2025, 25.08.2025 & 28.08.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 29.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.(MD)Nos.14816, 17225, 17226, 17227, 17230, 17231, 17232, 17236, 17237, 17233, 17234, 17235, 17228, 17229, 17408, 17498, 17499, 17500, 17551, 17552, 17617, 17625, 17618, 17619, 17620, 17621, 17622, 17623, 17624, 17880, 17923, 17924, 17925, 17926, 17927, 17936, 17937, 18041, 18042, 18043, 18044, 18045, 18046, 18047, 18048, 18049, 18050, 18060, 18061, 18200, 18209, 18378, 18451, 18452, 18477, 18479, 18478, 18623, 18698, 18769, 18786, 18787, 18788, 18789, 18790, 18791, 18792, 18793, 18794, 18795, 18796, 18841, 18988, 19020, 19021, 19022, 19023, 19100, 19220, 19221, 19222, 19223, 19224, 19225, 19226, 19267, 19270, 19268, 19269, 19341, 19342, 19358, 19359, 19360, 19525, 19526, 19527, 19528, 19529, 19530, 19531, 19750, 19751, 19758, 19759, 19784, 19979, 20057, 20247, 20248, 20692, 21791, 21792, 21793, 21794, 21795, 21796, 22007, 22220, 22612, 22749 & 23329 of 2025 and All connected miscellaneous petitions W.P.(MD)No.14816 of 2025:

1.R.Kavitha 1/27

2.The Hameethia Middle School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Mr.P.Mohamed Rabeek, Periyakulam, Theni District.

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of Elementary Education, O/o. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai - 6.

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, O/o. The District Elementary Educational Office, Theni, Theni District.

4.The Block Educational Officer, O/o.The Block Educational Office, Periyakulam, Theni District.

...Respondents

2/27

P RAYER:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent Na.Ka.No.028490/E1/2024 dated 19.05.2025 and the consequential impugned order issued by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.733/A2/2025 dated 22.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal.

In W.P.(MD)Nos.22220, 14816, 17225 to 17237, 17551, 17552, 17617 to 17625, 17636, 17937, 18060, 18451, 18452, 18477 to 18479, 19220 to 19226, 19758, 19759, 19784 & 23329 of 2025: For Petitioners : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates In W.P.(MD)No.22612 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran In W.P.(MD)Nos.22749, 19750 & 19751 of 2025:

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar In W.P.(MD)No.17498 to 17500, 17923 to 17927, 18061 & 19100 of 2025:

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman 3/27

In W.P.(MD)No.17880 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis In W.P.(MD)Nos.18041 to 18050, 18786 to 18796, 19020 to 19023, 19358 to 19360, 19525 to 19531, 21791 to 21796 of 2025: For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior Counsel for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates In W.P.(MD)No.18200 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Gunasekaran In W.P.(MD)No.18209 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvartthanan In W.P.(MD)No.18378 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian In W.P.(MD)No.18623 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar In W.P.(MD)No.18698 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mrs.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates 4/27

In W.P.(MD)No.18769 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan In W.P.(MD)No.18841 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar In W.P.(MD)No.18988 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vamanan In W.P.(MD)Nos.19341 & 19342 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam In W.P.(MD)No.19979 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad In W.P.(MD)No.22007 of 2025:

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Saravanan In all Writ Petitions:

For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.M.Siddarthan, Additional Government Pleader 5/27

COMMON ORDER The Writ Petitions, which were listed on different dates, were heard separately, but as the issue involved in all the Writ Petitions being common, relating to grant of incentive increments, they are being dealt with by this common order.

2.These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 028490/E1/2024 dated 17.06.2025 and the consequential orders of refixation of pay and recovery of the excess pay from the petitioners from the date of sanction.

3.In short, all these Writ Petitions assail the cancellation of the incentive increments granted by the Government for acquiring higher qualification and ordering recovery of the amount already disbursed. 6/27

4.Since the issues arising in these Writ Petitions are one and the same, all these Writ Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

5.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are either holding the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers, B.T. Assistants, Elementary School Headmaster and Middle School Headmasters under the respondent Department. While these petitioners were working as Secondary Grade Teachers and other posts as stated above, taking classes for 6th to 8th standard, they acquired higher educational qualification in M.A. (Economics), M.A.(History), M.com, M.A.(Political Science), M.A.(Sociology) and M.C.A. For the aforesaid higher qualification acquired, the Government granted incentive increments in terms of G.O.Ms.No.624, Education (E-2) Department dated 13.07.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.324, Education, Science & Technology Department (E2) dated 25.04.1995 and the petitioners are the recipient of the said incentive increments.

7/27

6.While that being so, the second respondent vide the impugned proceedings dated 17.06.2025, directed the respective educational authorities to cancel the incentive increments granted to the teachers who have acquired higher educational qualification in the subjects other than the permitted subjects. The said order of the second respondent was followed by the consequential impugned orders of revision of pay on the ground that the incentive increments have been granted incorrectly in respect of the subjects which are not relevant to the higher secondary subjects and thereafter, orders of recovery also came to be passed. Challenging the above impugned orders, the present Writ Petitions have been filed.

7.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incentive increments were sanctioned to the petitioners for having acquired higher qualification based on G.O.Ms.No.324, Education, Science & Technology Department (E2) dated 25.04.1995. However, the cancellation orders are solely based on a previous order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.22704 of 2018, in which this Court has held that the incentive increments are only allowed for higher qualifications in the subjects Tamil, English, Mathematics, Science, and Social Science and 8/27

that subjects like Commerce and Economics are not taught in classes 1 to 8 and, therefore, would not be eligible for grant of incentive increments. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submit that the said reasoning is incorrect, as Economics is taught as part of Social Science in classes 6 to 8 (Middle School), thereby, making the higher qualifications relevant and eligible for increments.

8.It is further submitted that the petitioners are vested with a right to these increments, safeguarded by settled legal principles. The retrospective withdrawal of these increments violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in The Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Vs. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Others (2022 Live Law (SC) 42), wherein at paragraph No.47 the Apex Court has held as under :- "47.The exposition of the legal principles culled out is that an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it would be held to be 9/27

violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."

9.Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submit that G.O.Ms.No.324, clearly includes higher secondary syllabus subjects as relevant for incentive increments and hence, there is no infirmity in granting increments to teachers with higher qualifications in those subjects in which they acquired higher qualification. Also, cancelling the incentive increment granted to the petitioners a decade or more ago is illegal and arbitrary, especially when those increments were based on the subjects included in the higher secondary syllabus as per G.O.Ms.No. 324.

10.Further, it is also submitted that the cancellation order relied on a clarification letter dated 24.08.2016, which letter was put to challenge before the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.2043 of 2019 and this Court clearly held that a clarification letter cannot override or overreach the effects of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.324 dated 25.04.1995.

10/27

11.Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel that the Finance Department's G.O.Ms.No.286 dated 28.08.2018, emphasizes issuance of a show-cause notice before recovery of overpayment. However, in the present case, no prior show-cause notice or opportunity to explain was given to the petitioners before recovery of excess increments and the same is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice.

12.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the very object of granting incentive increments is mainly to encourage the teachers to advance their academic qualifications and for promoting better educational standards so as to impart better education to the students. The petitioners have lawfully acquired their incentive increments over many years, however, the subsequent attempts of curtailing these benefits defeat the very purpose of such encouragement which is contrary to law and equity and also amounts to injustice. 11/27

13.In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2747 of 2023 dated 28.03.2025, wherein at paragraphs 7 & 8 of the said judgment, the Division Bench held as under :- "7.Thereafter, successive State Governments expanded the scope of G.O.42 and whenever there was an attempt to narrow the scope to restrict the grant of incentive increments, the Associations of Government School Teachers were successful in negotiating with the successive Governments to have the incentive increments restored. One such instance is when the Government passed G.O.(Ms).No.624, Education dated 13.07.1992, which restrict the grant of incentive increments and made it applicable only to higher qualification, which will be actually useful to the students.

8.Unfortunately, after about 3 years, the Government went back again and passed G.O. (Ms).No.324 dated 25.04.1995 which apart from recalling the conditions imposed by para 3 of G.O. (Ms).No.624 dated 13.07.1992, extended the benefit of incentive increments for higher qualifications in subjects that are part of the higher secondary syllabus, 12/27

thereby widening the grant of incentive increments to higher qualifications obtained in subjects like Economics or Commerce or Computer Science, which were not taught in Standards 1 to 8 for which the Secondary Grade Teacher was appointed."

14.Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submit that the main issue that needs to be clarified is the legality of cancelling incentive increments granted for higher degrees irrelevant to the designated posts of Secondary Grade Teachers and B.T. Assistants in elementary and middle school education. He further submitted that the syllabus for classes 1 to 8 (elementary and middle school) only covers basic subject knowledge as opposed to the detailed and specialized syllabus for higher secondary education. Incentive increments relate only to higher educational qualifications in the subjects that are relevant to the syllabus taught at these levels. 15.Elaborating his arguments, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.324 dated 25.04.1995, the conditions (i) and (ii) in paragraph No.3 of G.O.(Ms).No.624 dated 13/27

13.07.1992, came to be deleted and further, the conditions for granting incentives were restricted to only the subjects in the higher secondary syllabus. Thereby, the incentive increments are sanctioned only for the subjects included in the higher secondary syllabus relevant to the teaching posts. Also, the Physical Education teachers were held eligible for the incentives increments only for higher qualification in Physical Education.

16.He further submitted that the Government also issued a Clarification Letter dated 24.08.2016, which clarifies that the Secondary Grade Teachers and Head Masters in elementary schools beside graduate teachers would be entitled to promotion up to 01.01.2007, even if they have obtained graduate degree in any subject, however, after 01.01.2007, those teachers who have obtained higher degrees in respect of other subjects would not be entitled for promotion or incentive increments. The relevant higher degrees include only Tamil, English, Science, Maths, and Social Science. Degrees in Commerce, Economics, Computer Science, etc., do not fall within this category. He also submitted that the 2016 letter is only a clarification and not a new imposition and is aimed at proper implementation of existing G.O.s.

14/27

17.Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the petitioners' submission on prior notice before recovery is misplaced as no new condition is introduced, negating the need for notice. He further submitted that the Government, as an employer, has the right to impose reasonable restrictions on granting incentive increments consistent with the scheme's objectives. He also submitted that various orders of this Court have consistently upheld the principle that qualifications unrelated to the syllabus taught to the elementary and middle school students do not warrant incentives.

18.In support of his contentions, learned Additional Advocate General relied on the followings decisions:

(i) W.A.(MD)No.910 of 2022 dated 24.08.2022.

(ii) W.A.[Md]No.918 of 2015 dated 17.12.2015. (iii) W.A.No.449 of 2025 dated 25.02.2025.

(iv) W.P.No.19221 of 2021 dated 03.06.2024.

(v) W.P.(MD)No.4608 of 2025 dated 10.03.2025. (vi) W.P.(MD)No.4305 of 2020 dated 03.01.2023. (vii) W.P.(MD)No.6292 of 2020 dated 09.02.2023. 15/27

19.This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

20.The issue arising in the present Writ Petition is whether the incentive increments granted by the official respondents in favour of the petitioners / teachers which are sought to be cancelled by way of impugned proceedings and the orders of recovery is sustainable or not and whether the higher qualification acquired by the petitioners will be useful to the students for their benefit and would fall within the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.624 dated 13.07.1992.

21.Grant of incentive increment is governed by G.O.(Ms).No.624 dated 13.07.1992 and the subsequent G.O.(Ms).No.324 dated 24.05.1995. The relevant paragraphs of the said G.Os. are as follows: G.O.(Ms).No.624:

"3.The Government accordingly direct that the incentive increment to school teachers for 16/27

acquiring higher qualifications be allowed subject to the conditions laid down below:

i) Sanction of incentive increments to a teacher for acquiring higher qualification in particular subject to the condition that the teacher will also be required to teach that in addition to the subject teacher used to teach.

ii) In respect of the past cases, those enrolled for courses of higher studies upto the academic year 1991-92, the restriction imposed in G.O.Ms.No.907, P & AR (FR II) Department dated 17-9-89 shall be relaxed to cover really relevant courses all subjects in the school curriculum. The Director of School Education shall judge the relevance in such cases no arrears of the incentive increment shall be allowed. Monetary benefit of incentive increment in such cases shall be allowed with effect from the date of issue of these orders. iii) In respect of teachers enrolling during 1992-93 and after, sanction of increments shall be restricted to developing areas of study and subjects where teacher shortage has been identified. The Director of School Education will identify the subjects for purposes of incentive increment in which teachers will be encouraged to qualify in consultation with the Government in all future case. 17/27

The intention is to encourage the teachers to get higher qualification in those specially selected subjects.

iv) In respect of physical education teachers incentive increments will be sanctioned in future only in the area of physical education with a view to upgrade physical training. The Director of School Education will identify the courses in this area also."

G.O.(Ms).No.324:

"5.The Government accordingly direct that i. The conditions (i) to (ii) in para 3 of G.O.Ms.No.624, Education dated 13.7.92 be deleted.

ii. For the sanction of incentive increments the subjects in the Higher Secondary Syllabus shall be the relevant subjects.

iii. In respect of the teachers in Physical Education they are eligible for the incentive for higher qualification only in Physical Education. iv. These orders will take retrospective effect from 17.9.86 to cover past cases.

v. The teachers who have acquired higher qualification in subjects other than higher 18/27

Secondary Syllabus shall not be eligible for any incentive increment."

22.Keeping in mind the above said arguments, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the higher qualification acquired by the petitioners / teachers are necessary for imparting knowledge to the students who are studying 6th to 8th standards. In order to ascertain as to whether such higher qualification is useful to the students, the said qualification has to be looked into against the syllabus for 6th to 8th standard in the State board.

23.The higher qualification acquired by the petitioners are in M.A. (Economics), M.A.(History), M.com, M.A.(Political Science), M.A. (Sociology) and M.C.A. Even a cursory glance at the higher qualifications obtained by the petitioners would reveal that those higher qualifications are specialized subjects which are required to be taught at the college level. Though, some subjects has an amount of relevance to the higher secondary level, however, the same are not required for classes 6 to 8. For classes 6 to 8, the subjects taught by the teachers are English, 19/27

Tamil, Science, Social Science and Mathematics. However, the higher qualification acquired by the petitioners do not fall within any of the subjects, which are taught in classes 6 to 8, viz., Tamil, English, Science, Social Science and Mathematics. For instance, some of the teachers who are holding the posts of B.T. Assistants (Mathematics), have acquired higher qualification in different subjects like Economics, Computer Science, etc., In the aforesaid scenario, the issue that falls for consideration is whether the higher qualification acquired by the petitioners are useful to the students is the pertinent question that requires to be addressed.

24.A cumulative reading of the syllabus of the 6th to 8th standards clearly shows that the subjects in which the petitioners have obtained higher qualification does not have any relevance of value for teaching the students belonging to standards 6th to 8th and that the higher qualification obtained by the petitioners may be valuable at the collegiate level and to some extent at the higher secondary level, but definitely not at the level of standards 6 to 8.

20/27

25.Broadly, the benefit of granting incentive increment is for encouraging the teacher to acquire additional qualification, which would ultimately be useful to the students in the higher educational stream, which would improve the standard of education and the knowledge level of the students. The petitioners who are holding the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers, B.T. Assistants, Elementary School Headmasters and Middle School Headmasters, instead of enriching their knowledge in the required subjects, which have relevance in standards 6 to 8, have acquired higher qualification in different subjects, for the purpose of incentive increments, but not considering the usefulness of the said qualification for the benefit of the students.

In a nutshell, the incentive increments are granted for the benefit of the students so that the teachers acquire higher qualification and benefit themselves while benefitting the students. But in the present case, the higher qualification obtained by the petitioners is only for benefitting themselves with the incentive increments and it in no way advances or improves the standard of education of the students studying in 6th to 8th standards.

26.The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.910 of 2022, had an occasion to decide a similar issue and this Court vide dated 24.08.2022, has held as follows:

"13.The appellant submitted that the object of granting incentive increment is to lift the morale of the teachers. But the government states that the object of granting incentive increment is to encourage the Teachers to qualify themselves, so that their qualification would be beneficial to the students. In the present case, the petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Teacher taking class for students from 1 to 5 standards and the qualification of M.Sc. Physics would not be beneficial to the students studying in the standards 1 to 5. Therefore, the Government is right in denying the incentive increment for higher qualifications when the higher qualification is not beneficial for the students studying in 1 to 5 standards."

27.Also, in W.A.(MD)No.918 of 2015, this Court vide order dated 17.12.2015, has held as follows:

"6.It is quite unfortunate that the object of grant of advance incentive increment to Teachers, is many 22/27

times lost sight of. The object is to encourage Teachers to pursue higher education, so that the higher education that they pursue enures to the benefit of the students. In this case, the appellant is a Physical Education Teacher. We do not know how the acquisition of a Under Graduate Degree in History and Post Graduate Degree, which has been in vogue, cannot be put against the respondent / writ petitioner by revoking the benefit already conferred on her."

28.In view of the categorical decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, the acquisition of higher qualifications like M.A. (Economics), M.A.(History), M.com, M.A.(Political Science), M.A. (Sociology) and M.C.A, has no relevance to the subjects which are taught in classes 6 to 8 and, therefore, the petitioners, who have acquired such higher qualifications like M.A.(Economics), M.A.(History), M.com, M.A.(Political Science), M.A.(Sociology) and M.C.A., would not be eligible for grant of incentive increments. Hence, the cancellation of the incentive increments granted to the petitioners cannot be interfered with. However, in respect of B.Ed., degree, since it is a relevant degree for classes 6 to 8, the rejection of the grant of incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed., degree alone is set aside.

23/27

29.However, it is the settled position of law that amounts which have been paid by way of incentive increments, which are not on account of any wrong committed by the petitioners, the same cannot be recovered. The grant of incentive increments on the application of the petitioners have been made by the respondents on the basis of wrong interpretation of the Government Orders, which cannot be put against the petitioners and, therefore, in the absence of any wrong committed by the petitioners, this Court makes it clear that the amount paid to the petitioners towards incentive increment cannot be recovered and the order revising the pay by cancelling the incentive increments could be applied only prospectively and not retrospectively. 30.Therefore, the cancellation of incentive increments, though is sustained, the recovery of the amount already paid towards incentive increments by the respondents is wholly unsustainable and to that extent the said portion of the order is set aside.

24/27

31.Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of, with the aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 29.08.2025 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MR Note to Office :

Registry is directed to incorporate all the cause title relating to all the writ petitions in the order that is issued to the parties.

25/27

To 1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Director of Elementary Education, O/o. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai - 6.

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, O/o. The District Elementary Educational Office, Theni, Theni District.

4.The Block Educational Officer, O/o.The Block Educational Office, Periyakulam, Theni District.

26/27

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

MR W.P.(MD)Nos.14816, 17225, 17226, 17227, 17230, 17231, 17232, 17236, 17237, 17233, 17234, 17235, 17228, 17229, 17408, 17498, 17499, 17500, 17551, 17552, 17617, 17625, 17618, 17619, 17620, 17621, 17622, 17623, 17624, 17880, 17923, 17924, 17925, 17926, 17927, 17936, 17937, 18041, 18042, 18043, 18044, 18045, 18046, 18047, 18048, 18049, 18050, 18060, 18061, 18200, 18209, 18378, 18451, 18452, 18477, 18479, 18478, 18623, 18698, 18769, 18786, 18787, 18788, 18789, 18790, 18791, 18792, 18793, 18794, 18795, 18796, 18841, 18988, 19020, 19021, 19022, 19023, 19100, 19220, 19221, 19222, 19223, 19224, 19225, 19226, 19267, 19270, 19268, 19269, 19341, 19342, 19358, 19359, 19360, 19525, 19526, 19527, 19528, 19529, 19530, 19531, 19750, 19751, 19758, 19759, 19784, 19979, 20057, 20247, 20248, 20692, 21791, 21792, 21793, 21794, 21795, 21796, 22007, 22220, 22612, 22749 & 23329 of 2025 29.08.2025 27/27