Allowed

K. Karuppiah, v. the District Educational

Madras HC14 Mar 2013WP(MD)/3912/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Madurai Bench held that a Government Order allowing incentive increments for higher qualifications must be given retrospective effect from the date of acquiring qualification. The court set aside the respondent's condition limiting benefits only to the order's date and directed re-evaluation of the case.

What did the court decide?

The condition in the impugned order restricting increments to the date of the Government Order was set aside; the respondent was directed to re-submit papers for further orders.

K. Karuppiah, Vs the District Educational — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.03.2013 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶4

W.P(MD)No.3912 of 2013 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶5

K.Karuppiah ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The District Educational Officer, Thenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the respondent in Oo.Mu.No.1008/A3/2012 and quash the condition No.2 therein and consequently direct the respondent to approve four incentive increments to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department dated 10.01.1969.

¶10

For Petitioner :Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam For Respondent :M.Govindan, Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner got a B.Ed Degree Course form Sastra University, Thanjavur through the Distance Education in the year 2009 and also passed M.A.(History) from Alagappa University, Karaikudi, in the year 2011. He therefore is entitled two increments as per G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department dated 10.01.1969 for having acquired that qualification and he applied to the Secretary of the School in which he is employed to grant him four incentive increments for having completed B.Ed degree and M.A. Degree and the same was forwarded by the School to the respondent for due approval and the respondent passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner is entitled to get increment only from the date on passing the order in G.O.Ms.No.112 School Education(M2) Department dated 28.07.2011 and not earlier to that and therefore this writ petition is filed challenging the condition No.2 in the order passed by the respondent. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the matter is a covered one and this Court has held in W.P.7450 of 2012 that as per the G.O.Ms.No.112, School Education(M2) Department dated 28.07.2011 a person who has acquired B.Ed Degree and M.A. Degree is entitled to get four increments and G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 28.07.2011 can be given retrospective operation and it cannot be prospective. He therefore submitted that as per the aforesaid judgment the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ condition imposed in the order of the respondent has to be set aside and the respondent may be directed to consider the proposal sent by

¶13

¶14

the School Management wherein, the petitioner is employed.

¶15

2.Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order is not a final order and they have returned the request of the Correspondent of A.V.S Higher Secondary School, Puliyangudi, Tirunelveli District with a direction to comply with certain defects and therefore, the School Management has to re-submit the papers and thereafter proper action will be taken on the request of the School Management regarding the payment of increments to the petitioner and therefore at this stage the writ petition is a pre mature.

¶16

3.I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader. No doubt, the respondent has returned the request of the Correspondent of A.V.S Higher Secondary School, Puliyangudi, Tirunelveli District with a direction to comply with certain defects pointed out in the letter. Nevertheless, in paragraph '2' of the above, the respondent has specifically stated that increments can be given only from the date of G.O.Ms.No.112 School Education(M2) dated 28.07.2011 and aggrieved by that condition only this writ petition is filed.

¶17

4.Following the judgment of the Honourable Justice V.Ramasubramanian, rendered in W.P.No.7450 dated 19.07.2012 in the case of G.Angulatha -vs- The Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and three others I also rendered judgments holding that G.O.Ms.No.112 School Education(M2) Department, dated 28.07.2011 can be given retrospective operation and the teachers are eligible to get increments from the date of acquiring the qualification and the increments cannot be given only from the date of issuance of G.O. Hence, the observation of the respondent in paragraph '2' of the impugned order that the petitioner is entitled to get increments only from the date of G.O.Ms.No.112 School Education(M2) Department, dated 28.07.2011 is not correct and it is set aside in the light of the judgment rendered to above. As the respondent has directed the Management of the School to re-submit the papers after complying with the defects the Management has to resubmit the papers and thereafter the respondent can pass suitable orders in the light of the observation was made.

¶18

5.With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Deputy Registrar(A/c)

¶21

/True copy/

¶22

Assistant Registrar

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/