Quashed

A.Philomina, Secondary Grade v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Feb 2024WP/8152/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a teacher, sought incentive increment for acquiring a post-graduate qualification. The High Court, relying on a prior order in a similar case, quashed the impugned order rejecting her claim and remanded the matter to the education authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order and remanded to 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders granting incentive increment.

A.Philomina, Secondary Grade Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.8152 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.No.8152 of 2017

¶7

A.Philomina … Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The Director of Elementary Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Nagappattinam, Nagappattinam District.

¶12

4.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Keezhaiyur, Nagappattinam District.

¶13

5.St.Sebasthiyar Aided Elementary School, Represented by its Manager, Kameswaram East,

¶14

Page No: 1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.8152 of 2017

¶17

Keezhaiyur Union,

¶18

Nagappattinam District – 611 110. … Respondents

¶19

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent in AthiMu.No.256/A1/2017, dated 17.03.20217 and quash the same and direct the respondents to award two incentive increment to the petitioner for acquiring higher qualification of M.A. with effect from 29.05.2009 and pass such further orders.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekanandan for Mr.r.Subramanian

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan Additional Government Pleader (Edu.)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher while

¶24

she was in possession of BT qualification. At the time of appointment,

¶25

a condition was prescribed that the petitioner could not claim incentive

¶26

increment for possessing the degree and B.Ed. qualification.

¶27

Admittedly, the petitioner obtained the post graduate

¶28

Page No: 2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.8152 of 2017

¶31

qualifications.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that even after acquiring higher qualification, viz. the post graduate qualification, she is not given incentive increment. The proposal sent by the fifth respondent school was returned by the third respondent. Hence, she has come up before this Court to quash the order dated 15.12.2015 of the fourth respondent returning the proposal.

¶33

Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.

¶34

This Court passed an order dated 13.10.2014 in W.P.No.7381

¶35

of 2007 directing the educational authorities to grant incentive increment in similar case, if the teacher possesses the post graduate qualification. The only bar is that he could not seek incentive increment for degree and B.Ed. Qualification.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that

¶37

Page No: 3/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.8152 of 2017

¶40

innumerable orders were passed by this Court on the same lines by various learned Judges.

¶41

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶42

respondents vehemently contended that the petitioner is not entitled for incentive increment for acquiring post graduate degree.

¶43

In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned

¶44

order is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent to pass fresh orders in the light of the order dated 13.10.2014 in W.P.No.7381 of 2007, within a period

¶45

of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶46

This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶47

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

14.02.2024

¶49

gba Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No

¶50

Page No: 4/6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.8152 of 2017

¶53

Neutral Citations : Yes/No

¶54

¶55

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶56

2.The Director of Elementary Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶57

3.The District Elementary Education Officer, Nagappattinam, Nagappattinam District.

¶58

4.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Keezhaiyur, Nagappattinam District.

¶59

Page No: 5/6

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.No.8152 of 2017

¶62

BATTU DEVANAND,J.

gba

W.P.No.8152 of 2017

14.02.2024

Page No: 6/6

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

A.Philomina, Secondary Grade v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Philomina, Secondary Grade v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

T.T.Joseph, Vs Union of India

M.Krishnamurthy Vs Union of India

Leelavathy Vs The District Collecor

J.Rajesh Vs The Secretary to Government

C. Radhakrishnan, Vs The Commissioner

N.Elanchezhiyan, Vs The Director of Elementary