Madras High Court
M.Shanmuga Sundaram vs The District Elementary Educational ... on 18 August, 2021
Author: S.S. Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016
and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1455 & 1456 of 2016
M.Shanmuga Sundaram .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1699 of 2016
M.Kaliammal .. Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1700 of 2016
Vs.
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Muthukulathur,
Ramanathapuram District.
... Respondents in both writ petitions
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.1699 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent i.e. the
Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Muthukulathur,
relating to Na.Ka.No.307/Aa1/ 2015, dated 7.4.2015 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to sanction incentive increment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/12
W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016
from the date of appointment to the petitioner for possessing the higher
qualification i.e. M.A. and M.Phil., even at the time of appointment
within a specified time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.
Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.1700 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent i.e. the
Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Muthukulathur,
relating to Na.Ka.No.307/Aa1/ 2015, dated 7.4.2015 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to sanction incentive increment
for acquisition of M.Phil., Degree from the date of passing the degree by
the petitioner for acquisition of higher qualification subsequent to the
appointment i.e., M.Phil., and to extend the incentive already granted
from 05.03.2012 for acquisition of M.A.Degree from the date of passing
the degree within a specified time fame that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Visvalingam
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Government Counsel
(in both cases)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/12
W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions are filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 07.04.2015 and consequently, to direct the respondent to sanction incentive increment from the date of appointment of the petitioner for possessing higher qualification i.e., M.A., M.Phil. Degrees.
2.In both the cases, the facts are not in dispute. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in Panchayat Union Middle Schools, on 06.06.1999. The petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.1699 of 2016, had acquired B.Lit., T.P.T., M.A., and M.Phil. Degrees, whereas, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1700 of 2016 had acquired B.Lit. and T.P.T Degrees, while entering into service. However, subsequently, the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1700 of 2016, acquired M.A., Degree in Tamil, M.Phil., and B.Ed., Degrees, after joining in service. Both the teachers are continuing as Secondary Grade Teachers in the same school till date.
3.The grievance of the petitioners is that they were denied incentive increment for acquiring M.Phil., Degree, though the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/12 W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016 was sanctioned incentive increment for the acquisition of M.A., Degree. As per the proceedings of the year 2013, the Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, refused to sanction incentive increment for acquisition of M.Phil. Degree on the ground that it is not possible as per the conditions stipulated at the time of their initial appointment, dated 04.09.1999. Challenging the order of second respondent, dated 07.04.2015, the above writ petitions have been filed. At the time of appointment, the petitioners were given undertaking that they will not ask for any incentives for having higher qualifications.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the intention or object in granting incentive increment is for attracting higher qualified people and for encouraging the existing teachers to acquire higher qualification while in service, so that the quality of service could be improved. Since the incentive increment had been granted on the assumption that higher qualified person will work more efficiently, denial of incentive increment to the petitioners showing the conditions stipulated at the time of appointment will be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/12 W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016
5.The learned counsel further submitted that persons, who were subsequently appointed, were given incentive for acquiring higher qualifications. When the incentive increment is extended by orders of the Court, even to persons who have higher qualification at the time of appointment, it is contended that the petitioners cannot be denied incentive increment from the date of appointment for having higher qualification even at the time of appointment. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.83, School Education (Prim.Edu-1(2)) Department, dated 28.04.2017, which reads as follows:
@4/nkny cs;s bjhlf;ff; fy;tp ,af;Feh;
(k) gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd;
fUj;JUf;fis muR ftdKld; ghprPyid
bra;jJ/ 1997?2000k; Mz;Lfspy; Vw;gl;l
jhH;j;jg;gl;nlhh; kw;Wk; gH';Foapdh;fSf;fhd ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fSf;fhfd fhyg;gzpapl';fis epug;g jFjpa[ilath;fs; ,y;yhjjhy; Vw;gl;l gpd;dilt[ gzpapl';fspy; ntiy tha;g;gf fhj;jpUg;nghh; gl;oaypy; ,Ue;j mnj ,dj;ijr; rhh;e;j gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;
jFjp bgw;wth;fis bfhz;L epug;gg;gl;ljpy;
gjtp cah;t[ bgwhky; Xa;t[ bgw;w kw;Wk;
bjhlf;ff; fy;tp ,af;ffj;jpd; fPH;
gzpg[hpe;J tUk; 420 Mrphpah;fSf;Fk;
(315 ,ilepiy Mrphpah;fs; + 105
bjhlf;fg; gs;sp jiyik Mrphpah;fs;)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/12
W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016
gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;ffj;jpd; fPH; gzpg[hpe;J
tUk; 23 Mrphpah;fs; Mf bkhj;jk; 443
Mrhphpah;fSf;F mth;fspd; gzp
epakdj;jpw;F Kd;dh; my;yJ gpd;dh; bgw;w
vk;/V/. vk;/v!;!p/. vk;/vl;/. nghd;w KJfiyg; gl;lk; Mfpatw;wpw;F mth;fspd; epakdj;jpd;
nghJ btspaplg;gl;l Mizfspy; cah;fy;tpj;
jFjpf;fhd rpwg;g[ Cjpa cah;t[ tH';Fk;
jpl;lk; ,th;fSf;F bghUe;jhJ vd
tpjpf;fg;gl;l epge;jidf;F jsh;tspj;J.
nkny 1 (k) 2-y; gof;fg;gl;l
murhizfspd;go (Vw;fdnt Cf;f Cjpa
cah;t[ bgw;w (SC/ST) gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;fSf;F ,J bghUe;jhJ) ,U Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[fs;
fUj;jpayhft[k;. gzpapy;
ePog;gth;fSf;F ,t;thiz btspaplg;gLk;
ehs; Kjy; gzg;gaDk;. Xa;t[ bgw;wth;fSf;F
fUj;jpayhf Xa;t{jpaj;jpw;F kl;Lk;
gzg;gad;fis tH';fyhk; vd Kot[ bra;J.
mt;thnw muR MizapLfpwJ/@
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon a Government Order, vide G.O.(1D)No.18, School Education (E2) Department, dated 18.01.2013, wherein, the second incentive increment for M.Phil., qualification is permitted by the Government. However, it was also noticed that the said Government Order is applicable only to the Graduate Teachers. Hence, the learned Government Advocate contended https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/12 W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016 that G.O.(1D)No.18, dated 18.01.2013, is not applicable to the petitioners.
7.The issue now before this Court is whether the petitioners who have given undertaking at the time of joining into the service that they will not claim incentive increment for acquiring M.Phil. qualification are eligible to claim incentive for having higher qualification. It is not in dispute that vide G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 28.04.2017, the Government itself has relaxed the condition, by which, the petitioners were enabled to get incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification. It is seen that the petitioners were also appointed in the year 1999. Hence, G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 28.04.2017 was intended to enable the petitioner to get incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification.
8.The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get incentive increment for acquiring M.Phil., qualification on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 28.04.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.1023, dated 09.12.1993, do not prescribe M.Phil as a qualification to enable the teachers to get incentive increment. As https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/12 W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016 pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the incentive increment insofar as the Graduate teachers are concerned was extended to persons, who have acquired M.Phil., or Ph.D. Denial of such incentive increment to Secondary Grade Teachers for acquiring M.Phil. as higher qualification will be arbitrary and discriminatory.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.Premakumari Vs. State of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai and others reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 1349. The Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the obvious intention in granting incentive increment is for attracting higher qualified people or for encouraging the existing employees to acquire higher qualification even though they are in service, so that the quality of service could be improved and that therefore, it defies logic as to why person who had already qualified would not get an incentive increment, if such an incentive increment is given to persons who acquire higher qualification while in service.
10.The Hon'ble Division Bench, therefore, further held that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/12 W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016 such a differential treatment will be violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Division Bench had dealt with the situation by referring to various Government Orders as to whether higher qualifications acquired by incumbents after the appointment are alone will be considered as per the Government Order. This Court has interpreted the Government Orders by reading it down to be constitutionally valid and held that persons who have acquired higher qualification at the time of appointment will also be entitled to incentive increment, if such an incentive increment is given to the persons in service, who acquired higher qualification after entering into service. The same logic and analogy can be applied in the present situation. A person who is appointed as a Graduate teacher is expected to have more qualification than Secondary Grade Teachers. Nobody can dispute that M.Phil., is a higher qualification for person to be appointed either as a Secondary Grade Teacher or as a Graduate teacher. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot deny incentive increment to Secondary Grade Teachers for having M.Phil. as higher qualification either before or after the appointment.
11.In view of the above discussion, this Court find merits in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/12 W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016 these writ petitions. The petitioners who have joined in the year 1999 as Secondary Grade Teachers and continuously serving all these years as Secondary Grade Teachers are entitled to incentive increments for acquiring M.A., as well as for acquiring M.Phil., subsequently. It is not disputed that the petitioners were given incentive increment for acquiring M.A., Degree. Absolutely, there is no impediment in view of the Government Orders to grant incentive increment except the submission based on the applicability of Government Order with reference to the Secondary Grade Teachers. As pointed out earlier G.O.(1D).No.18, Education Department, dated 18.01.2013, will be discriminatory, if it is made applicable only to the Graduate Teachers and not to Secondary Grade Teachers.
12.In view of the issues answered by this Court based on the submissions of the learned counsels on either side, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the second respondent, dated 07.04.2015 challenged in the writ petitions are set aside. The respondents are directed to sanction incentive increment to the petitioners for acquiring M.Phil. qualification, from the date of appointment to the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1699 of 2016 and from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/12 W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016 date of passing of the M.Phil. Degree to the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No. 1700 of 2016. Considering the additional financial burden on the State Exchequer and the financial constraints due to Covid – 19 pandemic situations, the disbursement of monetary benefits to the petitioner shall be within a period of two years from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.08.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet: yes / No TM NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Muthukulathur, Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 11/12 W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016 S.S. SUNDAR, J., TM W.P.(MD).Nos.1699 & 1700 of 2016 18.08.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12/12