Madras High Court
V.Mayalagu vs The Secretary To Government on 10 October, 2022
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.P.(MD) No.19425 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Petition (MD) No.19425 of 2014
V.Mayalagu ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government
School Education,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai 6.
3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Manamadurai Union, Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in m.jp.K.1819/m1/14
dated 14.11.2014 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to sanction third incentive increment for possessing M.A., from
05.06.2002 to the petitioner in the light of the order of this Court dated
20.12.2007 in WP (MD) No.2528 of 2007, order dated 12.04.2011 in
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19425 of 2014
W.P.No.9200 of 2011, order dated 05.07.2013 in W.P.(MD) No.7291 of 2011
batch, order dated 24.07.2013 in W.P.(MD) Nos.11802 of 2013 and batch,
order dated 18.09.2014 in W.A.(MD) No.867 of 2014 and in the light of
G.O.Ms.No.17 School Education Department dated 08.01.2008,
G.O.Ms.No.209 School Education Department dated 08.07.2010 and
G.O.(2D) No.15 School Education Department dated 28.03.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Spl. Govt. Pleader, for RR 1 to 3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The Writ Petition has been posted upon a reference being answered by a Full Bench of this Court in WA No.3674 of 2019 etc. batch dated 29.04.2022. A reference was made to a Full Bench in view of the conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court, one in WA (MD) Nos.701 and 769 of 2015 etc., dated 15.07.2015 (The Director of School Education and others v. S.Amalraj) holding that a teacher is entitled to a third set of incentive increment on account of acquiring higher qualification and the other in WA No.1664 of 2016 dated 29.06.2018 (The Director of School Education and others v. V.Dhanapal) taking a contrary view and 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.19425 of 2014 concluding that a teacher, during the entire tenure of service, would be entitled to only two sets of incentive increments and nothing more.
2. Upon a reference being made, the Full Bench had answered the issue concluding that the judgment of the Division Bench in WA. No.1664 of 2016 dated 29.06.2018 reflects the correct position of law. After considering the various Government Orders issued on the subject, the Full Bench had observed as follows:
“12. A perusal of the above order puts the issue beyond pale of doubt that as per the policy of the Government, a teacher for the entire period of his/her service shall be granted two incentives (four increments) only. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute regarding the fact that a Secondary Grade Teacher or B.T.Assistant or Post Graduate Teacher during the entire period of service as a teacher, is entitled to get only two incentive increments. Taking note of the same only, the Division Bench in W.A.No.1664 of 2016 dated 29.06.2018 (The Director of School Education and 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.19425 of 2014 others v. V.Dhanapal) has categorically held that the acquisition of an M.Phil. qualification does not entitle a teacher for a third incentive increment, in view of G.O.Ms.No.1024, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 09.12.1993 restricting the number of incentive increments to two and therefore, any teacher is not entitled to a third incentive increment.”
3. An attempt is made by Mr.Sasidharan and Mr.Ganesan, appearing for some of the teachers to contend that those teachers who have obtained the additional qualification prior to 09.12.1993, namely the date on which G.O.Ms.Nos.1023 and 1024 came to be issued would be entitled to incentive increments, since the number of increments was limited only by the said two Government Orders. We are unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents because the Full Bench has categorically held that any teacher during the entire period of his/her tenure would be entitled only to two sets of incentive increments.
4. In view of the categorical pronouncement of the Full Bench 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.19425 of 2014 extracted above, we cannot take any other view. Hence the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking incentive increments will stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (K.KUMARESH BABU, J.) 10.10.2022 Index: Yes/no Internet: Yes/no speaking order/non speaking order jv To
1. The Secretary to Government School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 6.
3. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Manamadurai Union, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.19425 of 2014 R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
(jv) Writ Petition (MD) No.19425 of 2014 10.10.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis