Madras High Court
P.Aloysius Durairaj vs The District Elementary Educational ... on 11 July, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.07.2018 CORAM The Honourable Mr. Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.28066 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2015 & 19888 of 2016 P.Aloysius Durairaj ...Petitioner Versus 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Maduranthagam, Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceeding, issued by the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.303/A1/2015 dated 20.08.2015 and to quash the same and consequently directing the 1st respondent to restoring the incentive increment for B.Ed., qualification acquired by the petitioner as granted in the orders passed in O.Mu.No.929/AA5/2015 dated 03.06.2015 with effect from 09.08.2013. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan (Government Advocate) O R D E R
The order of cancellation of incentive increment issued by the second respondent in proceedings dated 28.02.2015, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher and subsequently, promoted to the post of Middle School Headmaster on 29.06.2012. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that on acquisition of additional educational qualification, incentive increment can be granted in accordance with the Government Orders, however, the incentive increment though granted by the authority competent, later came to be cancelled through the impugned order and the excess payment was also sought to be recovered. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
3.The issue in relation to the grant of incentive increment to the teachers working in the Educational Department on acquisition of additional educational qualification, has been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1664 of 2016 and the Judgment was delivered on 29.06.2018.
4. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the relevant Government orders and observed as under in paragraphs 5 to 8 which are extracted as under:
"5. Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate would contend that in view of G.O.Ms.No.1024 dated 09.12.1993, which restricts the maximum number of incentive increments to two and in view of the fact that the respondent had already been granted two incentive increments, which is equivalent to four advance increments, the respondent will not be entitled any further incentive increment during the period of his service. A copy of the said G.O. dated 09.12.1993 has been produced before us, the relevant portion of the G.O. reads as follows:
The maximum number of advance increments which a Teacher can get under the Scheme of incentive increments under this Government Order shall be four in his entire service. (one incentive increment is equivalent to two advance increments). The said position was clarified by the Government in G.O.Ms.285, School Education Department dated 28.11.2007, which reads as follows:
As per the policy decision of the Government, two incentives (four increments) only may be granted to the teachers for the entire period of their service and hence, accepting the above recommendation of the Director of School Education, for the Headmasters who got only one incentive for M.Ed. qualification during his service as Post Graduate Teachers and promoted to the Headmaster Post and after the promotion as Headmasters, on acquiring M.Phil/Ph.D/PGDTE qualification allowing a second incentive to such Headmasters from the date of the issue of this G.O. is ordered."
6. Of course, the respondent in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition has referred to certain Government Orders as well as the Orders of this Court granting a third set of incentive increments to certain teachers. The said Government Orders have also been produced before us by the learned Government Advocate, those Government orders have been passed in particular cases, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that the higher qualification in those cases are obtained, before 09.12.1993, i.e. the date on which the first G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.1023 was passed restricting the number of incentive increments to a maximum of two, during the service of the teacher. Therefore, we do not think that those Government Orders which have been passed taking note of certain special circumstances could be taken as precedents to enable the respondent to claim an incentive increment, which he would not be entitled to otherwise.
"7. The policy decision of the Government has been consistent to the effect that the teachers who acquire higher qualifications can be granted two incentive increments equivalent to four advance increments, during the entire tenure of their service. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the respondent has been awarded two incentive increments for acquiring B.Ed. and M.A. qualifications. Therefore, he cannot, as a matter of right, claim the third set of incentive increments for having obtained M.Phil qualification. We are therefore, unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge directing payment of third incentive increment to the respondent.
"8. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the Writ Petition No.22860 of 2014 will stand dismissed. However in the circumstances without costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
5.Having regard to the above, now, it is made clear that the Teachers including the writ petitioners, who acquired higher qualifications, can be granted two incentive increments equivalent to four advance increments, during the entire tenure of their service. Thus, the respondents are bound to follow the Government order referred to in the Judgment as well as the above said decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, for the purpose of grant of the incentive increments to the writ petitioner.
6.In this view of the matter if already two incentive increments are granted, the writ petitioner is entitled for further two incentive increments in his service, as per the Government order and as per the Hon'ble Division Bench. It is made clear that if any excess payment was paid, it is left open to the authorities to recover the same in accordance with law.
7.With these directions, the writ petitions stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.07.2018 Speaking Order Index :Yes Internet:Yes stm To 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Maduranthagam, Kanncheepuram District. S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J., stm W.P.No.28066 of 2015 11.07.2018 WP.No.28066 of 2015 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM.,J.
This matter came up for hearing today under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. In view of the submission made, Paragraph No.6 is to be reads as follows:
''In this view of the matter if already two incentive increments are granted, the writ petitioner is not entitled for further two incentive increments in his service, as per the Government order and as per the Hon'ble Divison Bench. It is made clear that if any excess payment was paid, it is left open to the authorities to recover the same in accordance with law.'' 27.09.2018 sk Note: Registry is directed to carryout necessary corrections and re-issue fresh order to the respective parties.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM.,J.
sk/pns W.P.No.28066 of 2015 27.09.2018