Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In order to encourage the Secondary Grade Teachers, who acquired Higher Educational Qualification, eligible incentive increments is given vide G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10.01.1969 and G.O.Ms.No.324, Education Department, dated 25.04.1995. These Government Orders were issued in order to encourage the Secondary Grade Teachers to improve the standard of educational system and ultimately the students community going to be benefited. The Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.1024, Education Department, dated 09.12.1993 and granted maximum two incentive increments to a Secondary Grade Teacher for acquiring the higher educational qualification.

6. The petitioner after regularizing the service in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1988, she acquired M.A. Degree on 26.05.1999 in order to avail the incentive increment as awarded in G.O.Ms.No.1024, Education Department, dated 09.12.1983. The petitioner made an application before the Authority. Accordingly, on 27.05.1999, the increments were granted in favour of the petitioner after revision of the pay fixation. The order was passed in her favour on 17.11.1999.

7. While so, based on the audit objection, the second respondent passed the impugned order, dated 21.06.2004 stating that since the petitioner did not possess the required qualification of Secondary Grade Teacher, she is not entitled to any incentive increments for acquiring higher qualification. Accordingly, the petitioner's fixation of pay was revised and ordered for recovery dated 14.07.2004.

"7. The learned single Judge has observed 'Incentive increments are granted only for persons acquiring higher qualifications while in service but not to a person, who possesses a higher qualification even before entering into service.'

8. We do not think the aforesaid observation of the learned single Judge can stand the scrutiny of logic or even reality. The obvious intention in granting an incentive increment is for attracting higher qualified people or for encouraging the existing employees to acquire higher qualification, even though in service, so that the quality of service would improve. This is obviously on the assumption that a higher qualified person could work more efficiently. Therefore, it defies logic as to why a person who had already qualified would not get an incentive increment, if such an incentive increment is given to a lower qualified person in service, who acquires subsequently such higher qualification. Such a differential treatment would not stand the scrutiny of right to equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

9. That apart, if the relevant G.Os are examined carefully, it can be safely concluded that the G.Os in reality do not intend to lay down in the manner it has been now concluded by the learned single Judge. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the G.Os. The underlined portion of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.1.1969 indicates that if a person possessing higher qualification enters into service, his initial pay may be fixed by giving advance increments. Similarly in the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.8.1986, paragraph 2 makes it clear that "the P.G. teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools who possess or acquire Post Graduate qualification in education i.e. M.Ed., Degree shall be granted two advance increments in the scales of pay admissible to them". It is no where contemplated in the G.Os., that the incentive increments would be given only to those who acquired subsequently the qualification, but it would be given to all those who either possess, which means the degree is obtained at the time of entering into service or acquire, which means the degree is obtained after entering into service. Even the subsequent G.Os or the clarifications, no where indicate that in order to be eligible for getting incentive increment, the person has to acquire such higher qualification only after entering into service and not otherwise. Therefore, we are unable to accept the conclusion of the learned single Judge that a person who enters into service after having acquired a higher qualification, is not entitled to get incentive increments.