Madras High Court
K.Sornakumari vs The Dirrector Of Elementary Education on 5 April, 2017
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.04.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
WP(MD)No.21368 of 2014 and
WMP(MD)No.1 of 21368
and
W.P(MD)No.4332 of 2015 and
WMP(MD)No.1 of 2015
WP(MD)No.21368 of 2014
K.SornaKumari .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Dirrector of Elementary Education,
Office of Director of Elemetary Education,
D.P.I. Campus,
College Road, Chennai- 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Shenkottai,
Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction, more in the
form of Writ, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed
in Na.Ka.No.839/A/2014 dated 22.12.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent and
quash the same.
W.P(MD)No.4332 of 2015:
M.Dhanalakshmi ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Princpal Secretary to the Government,
School Education Department, St, George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Director of Elemantary Education,
Office of Director of Elemetary Education,
D.P.I. Campus,
College Road, Chennai- 600 006.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational Officer,
Thenkasi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.783/A2/2014 dated 27.11.2014 and
consequential proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 783/A2/2014 dated 20.01.2015 passed by
the 4th respondent and quash the same.
!For Petitioner : D.Sasikumar
In both petitions
^For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah
In both petitions Government Advocate.
:COMMON ORDER
The petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers at Ariyanallur and Ariyur Government Elementary School, on 05.01.1990 and 30.01.1992 respectively. The petitioners were thereafter promoted as Elementary School Headmistress by proceedings dated 17.06.2003 and 23.07.2007 respectively, and later they were promoted as Middle School Headmistress, with effect from 17.12.2007 and 02.08.2010 respectively. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they were given incentive increment for acquiring higher qualifications namely M.A and B.Ed., Degree, by proceedings dated 08.02.2011 and 28.12.2011, since, they were found eligible as per the Government Order, as well as the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education, to get the incentive increment.
2.Though, the entitlement of the petitioners were clarified by the Director of Elementary Education in various proceedings with reference to many individual cases, to the effect that the Middle School Headmistress can be given the second incentive increment, even if they acquire M.A or B.Ed., Degree after getting promotion as Headmistress of the School, contra stand was taken by the Director of Elementary Education in some individual cases.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District by the impugned order stated that the petitioners were allowed to receive incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed. Degree, by mistake and that the sum of Rs.1,22,986/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Six only), and the sum of Rs.85,470/-(Rupees Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Only) which were paid to the petitioners respectively, by way of incentive increment, should be recovered from the petitioners and restored to the Government Account. It is this order of the District Elementary Educational Officer, which are impugned in these Writ Petitions.
4.Apart from referring to the various proceedings of the respondents, the petitioners relied upon the clarification that was issued by the office of the Director of Elementary Education. It is relevant to point out that in the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education, dated 07.06.1991, a clarification is given, which read as follows:-
?ghh;itapw;fhz; fojj;jpy; J}j;Jf;Fo Kjd;ikf; fy;tp mYtyh; nfhtpy;gl;o ehlhh; eLepiyg;gs;sp ,ilepiy Mrphpah; jpU.v];. rKj;jpuf;fdp vd;gth; jkpHhrphpaUf;fhd jFjp bgw;wjhy; 21.09.1988 Kjy; epue;ju fhypnaw;gl;l jiyikahrphpah; gzpaplj;jpy; gjtp cah;t[ mspf;fg;gl;lhh; vdt[k;, jiyikahrphpah; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l gpd;dh; gp.vl; njh;r;rp bgw;Ws;shbudt[k;, 5tJ Cjpaf;FG ghpe;Jiuapd;go jiyikahrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjk; jkpHhrphph; Cjpa tpfpjj;ij tpl nkyhd epiyapy; cs;sjhy; md;dhh; gp.vl; njh;r;rp bgw;wjw;fhd Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[fs; tHq;fyhkh? vdj; bjspt[iu nfhhpa[s;shh;.
nghjpa fy;tpj;jFjpa[ila Mrphpah;fs; mjw;F nkYk; fy;tpj; jFjp cah;j;jpf; bfhs;tjhy; khzth;fs; fy;tpj;juk; nkYk; caUk; vd;w mog;gilf; fhuzj;ij Kd;dpl;L mJ nghd;W Mrphpah;fs; fy;tpj;jFjpia cah;j;pjf; bfhs;sntz;Lbkd;gij Cf;Ftpf;Fk; bghUl;L Mrphpah;fSf;F Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ Miz muR bfhz;L te;Js;sJ. murhiz vz; 42 fy;tp ehs; 10.01.19696k;, murhiz vz; 107 fy;tp ehs; 20.01.1976k; gy;ntW Mrphpah;fSf;F tHq;fg;glJNnghy, gp.vl;. goj;j jkpHhrphpah;fSf;Fk;, Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ tHq;f Miz tHq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
jkpHhrphpah; eLepiyg;gs;sp jiyikahrphpauhfg; gzpahw;wpa fhuzj;jpdhYk; jkpHhrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjj;ijtpl jiyikahrphpah; Cjpa tpfpjk; mjpfkhdJ vd;gjhy; md;dhUf;F tHq;fg;gLk; Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ epWj;jpitg;gJ mtrpakpy;iy Vbddpy; nkw;go jiyikahrphpaUk; jkJ fy;tpj;juj;ij cah;j;jpf; bfhz;L tFg;g[fis elj;jp tUfpwhh;?
From the above clarification, it can be seen that the teacher, who is working as Headmistress of Middle School is entitled to incentive increment, even if she acquires B.Ed., qualification after the promotion as Headmistress of the School.
5.However, in the counter affidavit filed by the Director of Elementary Education, he has taken a stand contrary to the clarification referred to above.
6.These Writ Petitions have been filed in the years 2014 and 2015 respectively. Despite limited scope of the issue, the respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the proceeding of the Director of Elementary Education, dated 07.06.1991. The proceeding of the Director of Elementary Education, dated 07.06.1991 is supported by various communication and proceedings in individual cases.
7.In such circumstances, the contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioners, who have acquired M.A.Degree, after assuming the post of Headmistress of this School, are not entitled to claim incentive increment, has no legal basis. It is also a fact that the petitioners were given the benefit of incentive increment long time break. It is only by the impugned orders, the respondents are trying to intiate recovery proceedings after a lapse of several years.
8.The conduct of the respondents also has to be taken note of. It is seen that the respondents have recognized the entitlement of the petitioners to receive incentive increment at the earlier point of time and now they are trying to give a different interpretation to the proceedings and clarifications, which are purely internal with in the Department of Education. The respondents are trying to deviate from the original stand taken and trying to deprive the petitioners of the benefit extended to them for a long number of years. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the case of the respondents regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to incentive increment.
9.The case of the respondents in the counter affidavit is only to the effect that the petitioners, after becoming Headmistress of the Middle School, are not entitled to get incentive increments for acquiring B.Ed.
Degree. It is contended that the petitioners acquired B.Ed., after becoming Middle School Headmistress and that since B.Ed., Degree is a required basic qualification for appointment of Middle School Headmistress, as clarified by the Director of Elementary Education, the petitioners are not entitled to incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed. Degree. In support of this, the proceedings of the Joint Director of Elementary Education, dated 07.11.2014, was relied upon.
10.In the present cases, the petitioners were working as Primary School Headmistress from 17.06.2003 and 23.07.2007 respectively. The petitioners also became Middle School Headmistress in 2007 and 2010, respectively. The fact that the petitioners were given incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed., qualification after this promotion as Middle School Headmistress is admitted and the clarification of second respondent reflect the correct position. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get incentive increment for acquiring additional qualification as per the earlier proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education, dated 07.06.1991 and the same cannot be stopped or denied in view of the qualification prescribed later in the year 2013.
11.In view of the forgoing reasons, this Court finds that there is no merits in the contention of the respondents. Hence, these Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed.
12.In the result, the impugned orders passed vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No839/A/20104 by District Elementary Educational officer, dated 22.12.2014 and vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.783/A2/2014, dated 20.01.2015, by the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, challenged in the two Writ Petitions are quashed. The respondents are directed to pay incentive increment to the petitioners in terms of the earlier order of the Government as clarified by proceedings of the Director of Elemantary Education, dated 07.06.1991.
To
1.The Dirrector of Elementary Education, Office of Director of Elemetary Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Shenkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Princpal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, St, George Fort, Chennai.
5.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Thenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District..