Allowed

V.Hariharan M.a., M.Ed v. the Director of School

Madras HC9 Oct 2014WA/228/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal addressed a claim for two advance increments for M.Ed. qualification. The High Court set aside a single Judge's order dismissing the petition due to lack of reasoning, holding the appellant entitled to increments acquired before a restrictive ceiling order came into force.

What did the court decide?

The order of the single Judge dated 14.10.2009 was set aside; the writ appeal was allowed, entitling the appellant to two advance increments and their arrears.

V.Hariharan M.a., M.Ed Vs the Director of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 9.10.2014

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶6

W.A.No.228 of 2011

¶7

V.Hariharan .. Appellant/Petitioner

¶8

vs.
1. The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai – 600 006
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore
3. The District Educational Officer
Tiruppur, Coimbatore District .. Respondents/Respondents
Writ Appeal has been filed against the order made in
W.P.No.35800 of 2006 (O.A.No.7711 of 1998) dated 14.10.2009.

¶9

This Writ Petition has been originally filed before the T.N.A.T. in O.A.No.7711/98 and transferred to this court and renumbered as WP.No.35800/2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction to the respondents to grant two advance increments for M.Ed. qualification to the petitioner from 29/05/92 and the arrears of increments by setting to quash the orders of the 3rd respondent made in o.M.No.1682/A2/97 dated 8.5.97.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.R.Saseetharan

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.D.Krishnakumar

¶12

(The Judgment of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN J.,)

¶13

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

¶14

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

¶15

This writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 14.10.2009, made in W.P.No.35800 of 2006 (O.A.No.7711 of 1998).

¶16

The petitioner in the said writ petition is the appellant herein. The appellant had filed an Original Application, in O.A.No.7711 of 1998, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Later, the said Original Application had been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.35800 of 2006. The appellant had prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant two advance increments for having obtained M.Ed. qualification from 29.5.1992 and for the payment of the arrears of increments, by setting aside the order of the third respondent, made in O.M.No.1682/A2/97, dated 8.5.1997.

¶17

The appellant had stated that he had joined in service, as a Tamil Pandit Grade II. Later, he had acquired a higher qualification and he was promoted as a P.G. Assistant, on 11.7.1978. Thereafter, he had been promoted as a Headmaster of a Higher Secondary School, on 26.8.1992. The appellant had claimed two advance increments for having passed M.Ed. Degree, during the month of May, 1992. As he had not been paid the said increments, he had filed an Original Application, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.7711 of 1998.

¶18

The learned single Judge had relied on paragraphs Nos.6 and 7 of the reply affidavit, dated 11.5.1999, filed on behalf of the respondents. The said paragraphs read as follows:

¶19

“It is submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.747 Finance dated 18.8.86 issued for the benefit of P.G. Assistants those who are not drawn any incentive increments previously in the existing incentive increment Scheme. The P.G. Assistants are not covered in the previous Government orders for the sanction of incentive increments. The new entrants to the P.G. post are eligible for incentive only after completing M.Ed/M.Phil/P.hd., degree.

¶20

It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.1023 Education dated 09.12.1993 was specifically issued on behalf of the Secondary Grade Assistants and B.T.Assistants only. The P.G. Assistants or Hr.SEc.Schools Headmaster's are not eligible for the sanction of 5^th & 6^th incentive increments.”

¶21

Relying on the said paragraphs, the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition stating that no relief could be granted to the appellant, in the light of the stand taken by the respondents. The appellant has challenged the said order by filing the present writ appeal.

¶22

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

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had stated that the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant without considering the terms of G.O.Ms.No.747, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 18.8.1986, G.O.Ms.No.740, dated 30.6.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.1023, (Education Science and Technology Department), dated 9.12.1993.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had further stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu has introduced the scheme of incentive increments for encouraging the teachers to acquire higher qualifications, as stated in G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10.1.1969. According to the said Government Order, teachers were entitled to receive incentive increments for each higher qualification acquired by them. While so, the Director of School Education cannot issue instructions fixing the ceiling limit for granting the incentive increments.

¶25

It had also been stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued Government Orders, in G.O.Ms.No.1023 and G.O.Ms.No.1024, (Education Science and Technology Department), dated 9.12.1993 and had brought an amendment to G.O.Ms.No.42, (Education Department), dated 10.1.1969, imposing a ceiling limit on the grant of incentive increments upto four. However, as per the said Government orders, it has been made clear that they would have only a prospective operation and that a teacher, who had acquired the higher qualifications before 9.12.1993, would be entitled for receiving the incentive increments.

¶26

It had been further stated that the learned single Judge had failed to see that the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.747, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 18.8.1986, specifically deals with the cases of P.G. Teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools and that they would be entitled to receive two advance increments for possessing or acquiring P.G. qualifications in education, in the scales of pay admissible to them.

¶27

It had been further stated that the learned single Judge had failed to note that the appellant had acquired M.Ed. qualification during the examinations held in the month of May, 1992, even before the Government Orders, in G.O.Ms.No.1023 and G.O.Ms.No.1024, (Education Science and Technology Department), dated 9.12.1993, had been issued.

¶28

It had been further stated that the Government Orders, in G.O.Ms.No.1023 and G.O.Ms.No.1024, (Education Science and Technology Department), dated 9.12.1993, had fixed the advance increments admissible to the teacher for obtaining the higher qualification, under the earlier orders passed by the Government, would be a maximum of four. However, it had been made clear that it would be applicable only prospectively.

¶29

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

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 20.6.2006, made in W.A.Nos.2604 of 1999 etc., (The DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI AND OTHERS Vs. S.A.REMIJUSI BHARATHRAJ AND OTHERS) in support of his contentions.

¶31

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had pleaded that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.285 (School Education Department), dated 28.11.2007, makes it clear that, as per the policy decision of the Government, two incentives (four increments) only may be granted to the teachers for the entire period of their service. Therefore, the appellant would not be entitled for any further increments, as claimed by him, based on his M.Ed qualification.

¶32

It had also been stated that the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.1024, (Education Science and Technology Department), dated 9.12.1993, makes it clear that the maximum number of advance increments, which the teacher can get under the scheme of incentive increments, under the said order, shall be four in his entire service and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get more than four increments for possessing M.Ed. degree qualification. As such, the writ appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the appellant had obtained his M.Ed. degree qualification during the month of May, 1992. As per the Government Orders in existence at the relevant point of time, the appellant was entitled to get advance incentive increments for obtaining higher qualifications. Even though he had obtained M.Ed. degree, which is a higher qualification, he had not bee given incentive increments, as prayed for by him. Even though the Government Orders, in G.O.Ms.Nos.1023 and 1024 (Education Science and Technology Department), dated 9.12.1993, have fixed the maximum increments that could be granted to a teacher for obtaining the higher qualification, as four, it had come into effect only on 9.12.1993.

¶34

Even according to the Government Orders, in G.O.Ms.Nos.1023 and 1024, (Education Science and Technology Department), dated 9.12.1993, it could be seen that the limitation on the grant of incentive increments would not be applicable to those who had obtained the necessary qualifications, for the grant of such incentive increments, prior to the passing of the said Government Orders. Accordingly, the appellant, who had obtained M.Ed. Qualification, during the month of May, 1992, would be entitled to the grant of incentive increments, as prayed for by him, in the present writ appeal.

¶35

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

¶36

Further, as per the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, dated 20.6.2006, made in W.A.Nos.2604 of 1999 etc., (The DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, CHENNAI AND OTHERS Vs. S.A.REMIJUSI BHARATHRAJ AND OTHERS), it is clear that the appellant would be entitled to the incentive increments, as prayed for by him.

¶37

It is also noted that the learned single Judge had passed the order, dated 14.10.2009, in W.P.No.35800 of 2006 (O.A.No.7711 of 1998), without adducing proper reasons for rejecting the claim made by the appellant. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned single Judge, dated 14.10.2009, made in W.P.No.35800 of 2006 (O.A.No.7711 of 1998) and to allow the present writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs.

¶38

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RECORDS) Dated: 6.11.2014 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai – 600 006 2. The Chief Educational Officer Coimbatore District, Coimbatore 3. The District Educational Officer Tiruppur, Coimbatore District. +1 cc to Mr.R.Saseetharan, Advocate,SR.48441. pur(co) krd 7/11 W.A.No.228 of 2011

¶39

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

V.Hariharan M.a., M.Ed v. the Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Hariharan M.a., M.Ed v. the Director of School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Natarajan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

S.Ganesh Vs a.Periyanayagi

R.Shanmugam Vs The Revenue Divisional

M/S Suprasesh General Vs the Commissioner of Service

S.Munuswamy Vs The District Collector