Madras High Court
S.Saleth Mary vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 17 July, 2012
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/07/2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P (MD) No.1049 of 2012 S.Saleth Mary ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai. 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Devakottai 630 302 Sivagangai District. 4.The Correspondent, St. Joseph's Middle School, Devakottai Extension, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in A.Thi.Mu.No.2047/A1/11 dated .09.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction second incentive increment to the petitioner for M.A. Degree. !For Petitioner ... Mr.H.Md.Imran for Mr.V.Paneer Selvam ^For Respondents... Mr.B.Pugalenthi Special Government Pleader :ORDER
The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher with B.A., B.Ed., qualification during February 1992.
2. While the petitioner was serving as a Secondary Grade Teacher, she passed M.Ed., during 1999. Thereafter, she passed M.A in May 2001.
3. The petitioner was granted incentive increment for M.Ed., during June 2001. However, the third respondent cancelled the incentive increment and ordered for recovery by an order, dated 04.11.2005. The reason for cancellation was that M.Ed Degree was not the essential qualification for the grant of incentive increment. The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.9975 of 2005, questioning the same. This Court allowed the Writ Petition on 28.09.2007.
4. The petitioner sought for incentive increment for M.A Degree. The third respondent passed an order, dated Nil.09.2011, rejecting the claim stating that there is no provision to give incentive increment for M.A Degree. This Writ Petition is filed, questioning the aforesaid order.
5. The second and third respondents have filed a counter-affidavit refuting the allegations and has sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The claim of the petitioner for incentive increment for obtaining M.A Degree is resisted on the ground that the petitioner gave an undertaking while she joined the service as Secondary Grade Teacher that she could not claim incentive increment for higher qualification.
8. In my considered view, the undertaking is misconceived by the Department. The undertaking is that the petitioner could not claim incentive increment for B.A. and B.Ed., Degree. Rightly, she has not claimed incentive increment for the said qualification. In similar circumstances, I allowed the Writ Petition by an order, dated 23.04.2012 in W.P(MD)No.6043 of 2010 in A.Mary Vs. The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and others. The relevant passage from paragraph Nos.10 & 11 in the said judgement is extracted hereunder:-
"As per the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioner is not entitled to claim incentive increments for her higher qualification viz., B.A., B.Ed., the B.T Assistants shall not be appointed against the Secondary Grade vacancy. In view of the dearth of qualified persons, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.539 Education (M1) Department, dated 21.04.1986, B.T. Assistants were appointed in Secondary Grade Post. The Government Order contemplates that the B.T or Tamil Pandits appointed to a Secondary Grade vacancy shall not claim incentive increment for higher qualification viz., graduation and B.Ed.
11. In this case, the petitioner is not claiming incentive increments for B.A., and B.Ed. On the other hand, she is claiming incentive increment for M.Ed., which she studied after she joined as Secondary Grade Teacher. Hence, in my considered view, the impugned order, which refuses to grant incentive increments, on the ground that the claim for incentive increment is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.539, Education (M1) Department, dated 21.04.1986, has no basis."
8. The next reason for refusing incentive increment is that the petitioner obtained M.A Degree without obtaining prior permission. This reason also must fail for more than one reason.
9. Firstly, no such reason is stated in the impugned order. Secondly, the said incentive increment is granted for obtaining higher qualification, since, the same would benefit the students.
10. The petitioner, is a Secondary Grade Teacher who obtained M.A as well as M.Ed Degree. The same shall be appreciated by the Education Department.
11. On the other hand, the Department has taken a negative attitude and a Division Bench of this Court has held that even the teachers, who acquired higher qualification at the time of appointment is entitled to incentive increment in R.Premakumari Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (5) M.L.J 1349. The relevant passage from paragraph No.9 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:-
"9.That apart, if the relevant G.Os are examined carefully, it can be safely concluded that the G.Os in reality do not intend to lay down in the manner it has been now concluded by the learned Single Judge. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the G.Os. The underlined portion of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969 indicates that if a person possessing higher qualification enters into service, his initial pay may be fixed by giving advance increments. Similarly, in the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.08.1986, paragraph 2 makes it clear that "the P.G. Teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools who possess or acquire Post Graduate qualification in education i.e., M.Ed., Degree shall be granted two advance increments in the scales of pay admissible to them. It is nowhere contemplated in the G.Os that the incentive increments would be given only to those who acquired subsequently the qualification, but it would be given to all those who either possess, which means the degree is obtained at the time of entering into service or acquire, which means the degree is obtained after entering into service. Even the subsequent G.Os or the clarifications, nowhere indicate that in order to be eligible for getting incentive increment, the person has to acquire such higher qualification only after entering into service and not otherwise. Therefore, we are unable to accept the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that a person who enters into service after having acquired a higher qualification, is not entitled to get incentive increments."
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to sanction incentive increment for M.Ed Degree within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
ps To
1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai.
2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Devakottai 630 302 Sivagangai District.
4.The Correspondent, St. Joseph's Middle School, Devakottai Extension, Sivagangai District.