Dismissed

T.Kalaimathi v. The Principal Accountant

Madras HC14 Jun 2023WP/15506/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed this writ petition filed by a retired teacher seeking a third set of incentive increments for her M.Phil. degree. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to more than two sets of incentive increments during her tenure, relying on Full Bench and Division Bench precedents which bind the Court on this issue.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus was dismissed; no costs awarded.

T.Kalaimathi Vs The Principal Accountant — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.15506 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.No. 15506 of 2016

T.Kalaimathi

... Petitioner

Versus

1.The Principal Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General(A&E), No.361, Anna Salai,

¶11

Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.

¶12

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Udayarpalayam, Ariyalur District.

¶13

3.The District Educational Officer, Udayarpalayam, Ariyalur District ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 21.09.2015 to grant third set of incentive increments for M.phil., Degree and fix the pension to that effect and based on that confer all the constitutional benefits to the petitioner, in the light of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.19044 of 2008 and W.A.No.154 of 2009 and in the light of G.O.(2D).No.15, School Education Department dated 28.03.2013 and G.O.(1D).No.352, School Education Department dated 16.12.2013.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶16

W.P.No.15506 of 2016

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Ambigapathy For Respondents 1 : Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan For Respondent 2 & 3 : Mr.M.S.Prem Kumar Government Advocate

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 21.09.2015 to grant third set of incentive increments for M.phil., Degree and fix the pension to that effect and based on that confer all the constitutional benefits to the petitioner, in the light of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.19044 of 2008 and W.A.No.154 of 2009 and in the light of G.O.(2D).No.15, School Education Department dated 28.03.2013 and G.O.(1D).No.352, School Education Department dated 16.12.2013.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that she had completed her B.Sc (Botany) degree in the year 1973 and B.Ed in 1983 and she had also completed M.Sc (Botany) in the year 1991 and M.Phil (Botany) in Education in 2008. The petitioner has been appointed as Graduate Teacher at Government High School on 04.11.1981. Subsequently, she has been

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶22

W.P.No.15506 of 2016

¶23

promoted as Head Mistress in the year 2009 at Government Higher Secondary School, Sannasinallur, Ariyalur District. The petitioner made representations to the respondents regarding third set of incentive increment in view of her completion of M.phil Course. The petitioner subsequently retired from service on 31.05.2011. Placing reliance on G.O(2D)No.15 dated 28.03.2013 and G.O(1D).No.352 dated 16.12.2013 and also orders of this Court in W.P.No.19044/2008 and W.A.No.154/2009 dated 11.08.2008 and 23.09.2010 respectively, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to favourably consider her representation for third set of incentive increment.

¶24

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter. Though the factual averments

¶25

set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are not denied, in so far as the third set of incentive increment is concerned, the respondents state that the petitioner is not entitled for more than two incentive payment. So far as the reliance placed on the G.O.s is concerned, the respondents state that the said two G.O.s should be read along with G.O.Ms.No.1024, Edn (Sci & Tech) Dept dated 19.12.1993 in and by which amendments were issued to G.O.Ms.No.42, Edn Dept dated 10.01.2009.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶27

3/6

¶28

W.P.No.15506 of 2016

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

¶30

for the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Advocate for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

¶31

The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1664/2016 dated 29.06.2018 . She also placed reliance on a recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3674/2019 dated 10.10.2022, where the Hon'ble Division Bench following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench held that any Teacher, during his or her entire tenure of service, would be entitled to only two sets of incentive increments.

¶32

In view of the above, this Court is bound by the ratio laid down by

¶33

the Hon'ble Full Bench as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and no different view can by taken. Hence, the writ petition is to be dismissed.

¶34