Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Sumathi on 28 November, 2018
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan, P.D.Audikesavalu
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.[MD]No.1471 of 2018
and
C.M.P.[MD]No.10432 of 2018
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
O/o. the Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus, Chennai-5.
3.The District Elementary Education Officer,
O/o. the District Elementary Education Officer,
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
4.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
O/o. the Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
S.Pudur, Sivagangai District. : Appellants
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Vs.
S.Sumathi : Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
against the order of Writ Court dated 07.03.2018, made in W.P.
(MD)No.2226 of 2018.
For Appellants : Mrs.S.Srimathy,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
*********
JUDGMENT
*********** [Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] The claim made by the respondent for sanctioning the additional increment consequent to her acquisition of M.Phil, degree, after surrendering the incentive increments earned earlier, was negatived by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai District, primarily on the ground that there is no such provision for surrender of the earlier incentive increments for the purpose of granting additional increment. The Writ Petition challenging the adverse order passed by the fourth appellant was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the State has come up with this intra-Court Appeal. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
2. There is no dispute that the respondent received two incentive increments consequent to her acquisition of the qualification. The respondent made a claim for incentive increment for her higher qualification in M.Sc., and M.Phil. The respondent had possessed the qualification in B.Sc., M.Sc., and M.Phil., at the time of her appointment. The respondent took B.Ed., degree during her service as a Secondary Grade Teacher. The respondent made a claim for two incentive increments for M.Sc., and B.Ed. The fourth appellant, by proceedings dated 11 September, 2012, granted two sets of incentive increments. The respondent was, thereafter, promoted as B.T. Assistant (Maths) on 17 August, 2015.
3. The respondent submitted a representation on 04 February, 2017, indicating that she was ready to repay the monetary benefits of two sets of additional incentive increments granted for the qualification in M.Sc., and B.Ed., and she wanted two sets of additional increments for M.Sc., and M.Phil., and fixation of the pay scale for the post of B.T. Assistant (Maths), taking into account such incentive increments. There is no provision either in the Service Regulations or in the Government Orders, permitting surrender of the incentive increments for claiming better benefits in the nature of additional incentive http://www.judis.nic.in 4 increments. The respondent enjoyed the benefit of incentive increments for M.Sc., and B.Ed., since 11 September, 2012 and it was only long thereafter, she made a claim for additional incentive increments for M.Sc., and M.Phil. The claim was rightly rejected by the Educational Authority.
4. The issue is practically covered by a decision of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1664 of 2016, dated 29 June, 2018 [The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006 and two others vs. V.Dhanapal].
5. The Division Bench was pleased to hold that the teacher, who has been awarded two incentive increments for acquiring B.Ed., and M.A., qualifications, cannot, as a matter of right, claim the third set of incentive increments for having obtained M.Phil., qualification. The order in question was passed before the judgment in V.Dhanapal's case. In any case, in the absence of a provision for surrender of benefit, the respondent was not correct in making a claim for additional incentive increment on condition of surrender of increments already received. Since this aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
6. The order dated 07 March, 2018, is set aside. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.2226 of 2018 is dismissed.
7. In the upshot, we allow the intra-Court appeal filed by the State. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] & [P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.] 28.11.2018 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No SML http://www.judis.nic.in 6 K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
and P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
Judgment made in W.A.[MD]No.1471 of 2018 Dated: 28.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in