Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers at Ariyanallur and Ariyur Government Elementary School, on 05.01.1990 and 30.01.1992 respectively. The petitioners were thereafter promoted as Elementary School Headmistress by proceedings dated 17.06.2003 and 23.07.2007 respectively, and later they were promoted as Middle School Headmistress, with effect from 17.12.2007 and 02.08.2010 respectively. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they were given incentive increment for acquiring higher qualifications namely M.A and B.Ed., Degree, by proceedings dated 08.02.2011 and 28.12.2011, since, they were found eligible as per the Government Order, as well as the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education, to get the incentive increment.

2.Though, the entitlement of the petitioners were clarified by the Director of Elementary Education in various proceedings with reference to many individual cases, to the effect that the Middle School Headmistress can be given the second incentive increment, even if they acquire M.A or B.Ed., Degree after getting promotion as Headmistress of the School, contra stand was taken by the Director of Elementary Education in some individual cases.

3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District by the impugned order stated that the petitioners were allowed to receive incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed. Degree, by mistake and that the sum of Rs.1,22,986/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Six only), and the sum of Rs.85,470/-(Rupees Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Only) which were paid to the petitioners respectively, by way of incentive increment, should be recovered from the petitioners and restored to the Government Account. It is this order of the District Elementary Educational Officer, which are impugned in these Writ Petitions.

7.In such circumstances, the contention of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the petitioners, who have acquired M.A.Degree, after assuming the post of Headmistress of this School, are not entitled to claim incentive increment, has no legal basis. It is also a fact that the petitioners were given the benefit of incentive increment long time break. It is only by the impugned orders, the respondents are trying to intiate recovery proceedings after a lapse of several years.

8.The conduct of the respondents also has to be taken note of. It is seen that the respondents have recognized the entitlement of the petitioners to receive incentive increment at the earlier point of time and now they are trying to give a different interpretation to the proceedings and clarifications, which are purely internal with in the Department of Education. The respondents are trying to deviate from the original stand taken and trying to deprive the petitioners of the benefit extended to them for a long number of years. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the case of the respondents regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to incentive increment.

10.In the present cases, the petitioners were working as Primary School Headmistress from 17.06.2003 and 23.07.2007 respectively. The petitioners also became Middle School Headmistress in 2007 and 2010, respectively. The fact that the petitioners were given incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed., qualification after this promotion as Middle School Headmistress is admitted and the clarification of second respondent reflect the correct position. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get incentive increment for acquiring additional qualification as per the earlier proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education, dated 07.06.1991 and the same cannot be stopped or denied in view of the qualification prescribed later in the year 2013.