Madras High Court
R.Saravanan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 11 July, 2018
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan, R.Subramanian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.07.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.A.No.740 of 2018
R.Saravanan
Vocational Instructor,
S.K.P.D. Boy's Higher Secondary School,
Chennai 600 001. ... Appellant
versus
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational)
College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
4. The District Education Officer,
Chennai East
Jai Gopal Karodia (G) Higher Secondary School,
Choolaimedu High Road,
Chennai 600 094. ... Respondents
Appeal filed against the order passed by this Court dated 01.11.2017 passed in W.P.No. 22674 of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Saseetharan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The challenge in this intra Court Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge in WP No.22674 of 2014 dated 01.11.2017, in and by which, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant incentive increments to the appellant for acquiring B.Ed. qualification and also grant arrears of increments, as per the G.O.Ms.No.240, School Education(VE) Department, dated 18.08.2010.
2. The appellant was appointed as Double Part Time Vocational Instructor in Accountancy and Auditing on 21.09.1984 in S.K.P.D. Boy's Higher Secondary School, Chennai on consolidated pay. The appointment of the appellant was approved by the Chief Educational Officer and he was absorbed as full time Vocational Instructor in regular time scale of pay from 01.04.1990, as per the proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai, dated 30.03.1991. By proceedings dated 10.07.2007, the services of the appellant were regularised in the post of Vocational Instructor with effect from 01.04.1990. While working as a Vocational Instructor, the appellant had acquired the Educational qualification of M.Com. and B.Ed. He acquired M.Com. Degree from Madras University in May 1987 and B.Ed. from Annamalai University in December 1988. Based on the said higher qualifications acquired by the appellant, the appellant would claim that he is eligible for two incentive increments as per the G.O.Ms.No.240. It is also admitted that the appellant has been sanctioned one incentive increment (two advanced increments) for acquiring M.Com. qualification and the second incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed. qualification was denied. Claiming that he is entitled to the same, as per G.O.Ms.No.240, the appellant has come forward with the above Writ Petition, seeking the relief of Mandamus as stated supra.
3. The claim of the appellant was resisted on the ground that the entitlement of Vocational Instructors, two incentive increments is governed by G.O.Ms.No.240 dated 18.08.2010. According to the respondents, as per the said G.O., the incentive increments could be granted to Vocational Instructor for acquiring M.Com. or B.Ed. and another incentive increment could be granted for acquiring further qualification like M.Phil or M.Ed. or P.hd.
4. The learned Single Judge taking into account the language employed in G.O.No.240 dated 18.08.2010 accepted the contentions of the respondents and dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved, the appellant had come forward with this intra Court Appeal.
5. We have heard Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate (Education) appearing for the respondents.
6. The grant of incentive increments for teachers acquiring higher qualification was originally introduced by G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969, in respect of the Secondary Grade or Senior Secondary Grade Teachers, B.T./B.Ed. Assistant, Head Masters of Government Board Schools and Municipalities/ Townships, Headmasters of Aided High School, Pandits I Grade, Pandits II Grade II, Physical Training Grade-I and other Specialists Teacher. Over the years the grant of incentive increments for teachers obtaining higher qualification went through various changes. Insofar as the Vocational Instructors are concerned their claim for grant of incentive increments were considered by the Government along with recommendations of the Director of School Education and a scheme was evolved in G.O.Ms.No.240 dated 18.08.2010. The operative portion of the said G.O. reads as follows:
5. gs;spf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; fUj;JU murhy; ed;F Ma;t[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ nkny 1 kw;Wk; 2y; gof;fg;gl;l murhizfspd;go Vida Mrphpah;fSf;F cah;fy;tpj; jFjpf;fhd Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[fs; tH';fg;gLtJ nghd;W nky;epiyf; fy;tpapy; Kiwahd Cjpa tpfpjj;jpy; gzpg[hpa[k; bjhHpw; fy;tp Mrphpah;fSf;F ,t;turhizapd; ,izg;gpy; cs;sthW fyk; ehd;fpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s cah; fy;tpj; jFjpf;F ,uz;L Cjpa cah;t[fSk;. fyk; Ie;jpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s cah; fy;tpj; jFjpf;F ,uz;L Cjpa cah;t[fSk;. bkhj;jj;jpy; xU Mrphpahpd; gzpf;fhyj;jpy; ehd;F Cjpa cah;t[fisg; bgw jFjpa[ilath; vd;w mog;gilapy; Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[fs; tH';fyhk; vdt[k;. ,jid ,e;j Miz btspaplg;gLk; ehspypUe;J bray;gLj;jyhk; vdt[k; Kot[ bra;J mt;thnw muR MizapLfpwJ/
7. The tabular column annexed to the said Government Order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner viz. the Vocational Instructors for Commerce and Business is as follows:
II Vocational Instructors for Commerce and Business 1
a) office Secretaryship with Accountancy B.Com M.Com (or) B.Ed.
M.Phil (or) M.Ed. (or) Ph.D
b) Office Secretaryship with Typewriting (English/Tamil)
i) Any Decree (and)
ii)Typewriting Higher Grade in English/Tamil and T.T.C P.G.Decree in the related subject (or) B.Ed.
M.Phil (or) M.Ed. (or) Ph.D
c) Office Secretaryship with shorthand (English/Tamil)
i) Any Decree (and)
ii)100 words per minute in shorthand in English/Tamil, and
iii)T.T.C. In Shorthand P.G.Decree in the related subject (or) B.Ed.
M.Phil (or) M.Ed. (or) Ph.D
8. Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would draw our attention to the judgment of this Court in K.Pandian and others v. Director of School Education, Chennai and others dated 14.08.2009, wherein, the claim of Vocational Instructors for grant of incentive increments was considered by this Court. Inasmuch as G.O.Ms.No.240 was not issued by then, this Court considered them as Specialists Teacher and directed payment of incentive increments to them. After the introduction of G.O.Ms.No.240, we do not think the said judgment could be safely applied, to the case on hand, inasmuch as a specific provision has been made by way of Government Order for grant of incentive increments to Vocational Instructors.
9. Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel would however invite our attention to judgment of this Court in A.Rajanayagam v. Secretary to Government, School Education Department and others dated 16.04.2012, made in W.P.(MD)No.960 of 2011. The said judgment in paragraph No.13, the learned Single Judge had observed as follows:
13. In my view, the government order has to be read with either for M.com, or B.Ed. or M.Phil or M.Ed. Or Ph.D, the teacher shall be given incentive increment subject to the maximum of two incentive increments. That should be the proper reading of G.O.Ms.No.240. In fact, in the case of teachers other than vocational teachers, on such restriction is placed in the grant of incentive increment. Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel would submit that the reading of G.O. as has been done by the learned Single Judge in WP No.960 of 2011 should be followed by us.
10. Per contra, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the Government had considered the Vocational Instructors as a separate Group and had evolved a scheme for grant of incentive increments to them. According to him, the Vocational Instructors cannot be treated on par with others. He would therefore, submit that as per the Government Order, viz. G.O.Ms.No.240 dated 18.08.2010, the Vocational Instructors are entitled to one set of incentive increments (two advance increments) for acquiring Post Graduate qualification in Commerce viz. M.Com. or B.Ed. The next set of incentive increments could be sanctioned to them, only if they acquired further higher qualifications set out in column 5 of the Schedule appended to G.O.Ms.No.240, viz. M.Phil or M.Ed. or P.hd.
11. We have considered the rival submissions. We are unable to subscribe the views of the learned Single Judge expressed in paragraph 13 of the judgment in WP (MD) No.960 of 2011 dated 16.04.2012. The grant of incentive increments for acquisition of higher qualification by teachers is a policy decision of the State Government and a Government Order in that respect should be given the meaning that would give effect to the intention of the State Government. The Government Order conferring certain benefits on a particular clause of individuals cannot be read widely, on the ground that, it is discriminates the clause of individuals covered by the Government Order with other clause of individuals, who are placed in altogether different footing.
12. Insofar as Vocational Instructors are concerned they belong to separate clause by themselves and they were recruited on ad hoc basis upon the introduction of Vocational courses in 10 + 2 Stream, which was introduced in the year 1978-1979. The Vocational Instructors, who possessed only under Graduate qualification had joined as Vocational Instructors on ad hoc basis and their services were regularised much later. Therefore, they cannot claim to be treated on par with the actual teaching staff in a Government or an Aided School.
13. The Government after examining the recommendations of the Director of School Education had specifically stated that the Vocational Instructors would be given one incentive increment for acquiring of M.Com. or B.Ed. and another incentive increment for acquiring M.Phil or M.Ed. or Phd. The terms of the G.O. being very clear, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge, so as to enable grant of one incentive increment for acquiring M.Com. and another incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed. Such an interpretation would be opposed to the very Government Order. We are therefore, of the view that the Authorities were right in denying the claim of the appellant for a second incentive increment for acquiring the additional Education qualification of B.Ed. As per the G.O., the appellant would be entitled to one incentive increment (two advance increments) for acquiring M.Com. or B.Ed.
14. The appellant has already been granted one incentive increment for acquiring the Post Graduate qualification, viz. M.Com. Hence he would not be entitled to another incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed. qualification. In this view of the matter, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition. The Writ Appeal therefore fails and the same is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
(K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.) (R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
11.07.2018
jv
Index: Yes/no
Internet: Yes/No
speaking order/non speaking order
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
3. The Joint Director of School Education (Vocational)
College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
4. The District Education Officer,
Chennai East
Jai Gopal Karodia (G) Higher Secondary School,
Choolaimedu High Road,
Chennai 600 094.
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
and
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
(jv)
W.A.No.740 of 2018
11.07.2018