Allowed

Dr.G.Korakumari v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Madras HC19 Aug 2014WP/23185/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court in this writ petition held that Government Order No.194 dated 10.10.2006 superseded the cut-off date under G.O.1170, making the petitioner eligible for incentive increment despite obtaining her M.Phil after 2001.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing the District Educational Officer to grant incentive increment to the petitioner for her M.Phil qualification within eight weeks.

Dr.G.Korakumari Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARI PARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P. No.23185 of 2012

¶6

DR.G.KORAKUMARI [ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1 STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY
ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT CHENNAI-9.
2 DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
CHENNAI600 006.
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CENTRAL CHENNAI, SAIDAPET,
CHENNAI- 600 015.
4 SECRETARY,
THE RANI MEYYAMMAL GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM,
CHENNAI-600 028. [ RESPONDENTS ]

¶7

Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to sanction one set of incentive increment to the petitioner for M.Phil. in Physical Education with all consequential benefits

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan for M/s.C.S.Associates For Respondents : M/s.P.Rajalakshmi for R1 to R3 Government Advocate No Appearance for R4

¶9

Heard both sides.

¶10

2.The petitioner is a Physical Education Director Grade I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the fourth respondent Higher Secondary School. The petitioner

¶11

acquired M.Phil in Physical Education on 29.12.1995. She claimed incentive increment for the aforesaid qualification. Since the same was not granted, she has filed this writ petition.

¶12

3.A counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent resisting the allegation. It is stated that the P.G. Teachers who obtained higher qualification viz., M.Phil/Ph.D./P.G. Diploma would be granted incentive increment, only if they get the higher qualification before 01.03.1993 as per G.O.Ms No.1170, Education Science and Technology Department dated 20.12.1993. Since the petitioner obtained the higher qualification only after the aforesaid cut off date, the petitioner is not entitled to incentive increment. Further, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the third respondent by his letter in L.Dis.No.4635/B2/2008 dated 04.05.2011, rejected the request of the petitioner.

¶13

4.As far as the letter L.Dis.No.4635/B2/2008 dated 04.05.2011, by the third respondent is concerned, the same is not rejecting the request of the petitioner for incentive increment. It was not even the letter addressed to the petitioner. It was a letter addressed to all the private School Managements stating that the issue relating to grant of incentive increment to the Physical Education Directors is pending with the Government. The letter in L.Dis.No.4635/B2/2008 dated 04.05.2011 is extracted hereunder:

¶14

“clw;fy;tp ,af;Feh;fshf gzpg[hpa[k; Mrphpah;fSf;F vk; gpy; cah;fy;tpf;fhd Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ tH';Fjy; rhh;e;J bjspt[iu nfhUk; KiwaPL murpd; ghprPyidapy; cs;s epiyapy;. ,Jrhh;e;j bjspt[iu murplkpUe;J bgWk;tiu. Cf;f Cjpa cah;t[ mspf;f ,ayhj epiy cs;sJ vd;gij bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ vdnt bgwg;gl;l fUj;JU mry; rhd;WfSld; ,j;Jld; jpUg;gg;gLfpwJ/ bgw;Wf; bfhz;likf;F xg;g[jspf;FkhW nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/”

¶15

Hence, I am of the view that the said letter L.Dis.No.4635/B2/2008 dated 04.05.2011 cannot be taken as the order rejecting the request of the petitioner.

¶16

5.On the other hand, the third respondent cannot deny incentive increment on the ground that the petitioner obtained M.Phil qualification after 01.03.1993 based on G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education Science and Technology Department dated 20.12.1993. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated 10.10.2006 based on the order dated 20.06.2006 in W.A.Nos.2604 to 2606 of 2009, etc., batch. The G.O.Ms.No.194 has now removed the cut off date 01.03.1993 as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1170. In my view, as per G.O.Ms.No.194, the petitioner is entitled to incentive increment as the earlier impediment created by G.O.1170 was removed. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to incentive increment based on G.O.Ms.No.194, School Education Department dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.10.2006 read with G.O.Ms.No.324, Education Science and

¶17

Technology Department dated 25.04.1995. In G.O.Ms.No.324, it is stated in paragraph No.2(iv) that the Physical Education incentive increment would be based only on the higher qualification in the area of physical education. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner obtained M.Phil in Physical Education. Hence, she is entitled to incentive increment for having obtained M.Phil in Physical Education. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that one Tmt.Kanagabai, who is similarly situated person like the petitioner was given incentive increment by an order dated 21.01.2008 of the third respondent, which is enclosed at page 7 of the typedset. Hence, the third respondent cannot take a different stand in the case of the petitioner.

¶18

6.For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the third respondent, who is the Sanctioning Authority for increments, to grant incentive increment to the petitioner for her M.Phil qualification within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vri
To
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
Government of TamilNadu
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT CHENNAI-9.
2 DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION,
CHENNAI600 006.
3 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
CENTRAL CHENNAI, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI- 600 015.
4 The SECRETARY,
THE RANI MEYYAMMAL GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM, CHENNAI-600 028.
+ 1 C.C. TO M/S.C.S.Associates Advocate Sr.37907

¶20

PPA[CO]

¶21

KS 05/09/2014 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

W.P.No.23185 of 2012

Dr.G.Korakumari v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.G.Korakumari v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Chinnakannu Vs the Deputy Executive Officer

A.R.Muthu Saravanan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Sundari Vs the Director

Tmt.S.Bhakkiam Vs the Superintending of Engineer

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs the Chairman & Managing

Tasmac Sumai Thookkum Vs the Managing Director