Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit that, that apart, the petitioner was already granted two set of advance incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification, namely, B.Ed., and M.A, and she is enjoying the same. A teacher in the entire service period would only entitle for two set of advance incentive increment and beyond that, even though further higher qualification is acquired by a teacher, he would not be entitled to get any further advance increment i.e., third set of advance incentive increment and therefore, since the petitioner has already got two set of advance incentive increment, she would not be entitled to claim the third set and therefore her claim made in this regard is liable to be rejected.

10.In this regard, the learned Additional Government Pleader would rely upon paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent which reads thus:-

?4.It is submitted that the Government have instructed in their letter No.590, Education Department dated 20.03.1976 that in the case of teachers who got already four advance increments (two incentive increments) for acquiring higher qualifications, the question of sanctioning further advance increments to them either in the old scale of pay or in the revised scale of pay does not arise if any made, such amounts may be recovered. Again in letter No.14705/E2/97-19 dated 31.05.2000, the Government have ordered that all the categories of teachers will be given only two incentive increments in their entire service period and there is no need to revise the stand of the Government further more. It is also submitted that the Government in their orders, G.O.Ms.No.1023 Education, Science and Technology Department dated 09.12.1993 have specifically informed that in future, the maximum number of advance increments admissible to a teacher for obtaining higher qualifications under the orders shall be four only (two incentive increments).?

?6.According to the District Educational Officer, Paramakudi, second appellant herein, as per the G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10.01.1969, the Writ Petitioner was awarded with two incentive increments each for B.Ed., and M.A. As per G.O.Ms.No.1024, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 09.12.1993, the maximum number of advance increments, which a Teacher can get under the scheme, is four, in his/her entire service. Therefore, the second appellant has submitted that four advance increments (two incentive increments) were already given to the writ petitioner, and therefore, she is not eligible for the third incentive increment.?

17.In so far as the further argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the two Government Orders, namely G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education Department dated 20.12.1993 as well as G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated 10.10.2006 would not be made applicable to the case of the petitioner is concerned, even such objection in the opinion of this Court, may not be sustainable because, in the two judgments relied on by the petitioner's side, all these issues have been exhaustively discussed and decided. In a case of a Physical Education Teacher, the issue of grant of advance incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification, has also been considered and decided in favour of the Teacher concerned. Also, a Tamil Pandit, as well as B.T Teacher has been considered for grant of advance incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification. Therefore the said argument that the relevant Government Orders namely G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education Department dated 20.12.1993 as well as G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated 10.10.2006, would not be made applicable to the case of the petitioner is concerned, is also liable to be rejected, as without the aid of the said Government Orders the petitioner can independently claim the third set of advance incentive increment for acquiring the higher qualification, namely, M.Phil degree. The only aid that the petitioner can take from G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated 10.10.2006, is that the hurdle created in G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education Department dated 20.12.1993 by putting a cut of date 01.03.1993, since has been removed or deleted by G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated 10.10.2006, at paragraph No.4. Therefore on that score it cannot be said that, only on the strength of G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education Department dated 20.12.1993 as well as G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated 10.10.2006 alone the petitioner is claiming her advance incentive increment for acquiring the qualification of M.Phil, as a third set of incentive increment. Therefore all the contentions raised by the respondents' side, since has been covered by the said decisions of this Court, as has been referred to above, are liable to be rejected. Therefore, accordingly they are rejected.