Allowed¶42

The State of Tamil Nadu, v. a.Arul Joseph

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) – Third incentive increment for M.Phil qualification

Madras HC10 Dec 2025WA(MD)/1123/2016

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third incentive increment; M.Phil qualification; BT Assistant; incentive increments for teachers; Tamil Nadu Director of School Education; Full Bench reference W.A.No.3674 of 2019 (29.04.2022); S.Amalraj view held not good law; N.Balasoundari view held not good law; V.Dhanapal view upheld; two incentive increments / four advance increments for entire service; single Judge order set aside; writ appeal allowed; Clause 15 Letters Patent; Madurai Bench; G.R.Swaminathan; R.Kalaimathi; 10.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 18.12.2015 of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.22935 of 2015 set aside; Writ Appeal allowed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.6911 of 2016 closed. ¶42

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs a.Arul Joseph — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 18.12.2015 of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.22935 of 2015 set aside; Writ Appeal allowed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.6911 of 2016 closed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether a teacher is entitled to a third incentive increment on account of acquiring an M.Phil qualification or not (the reference question answered by the Full Bench, on which this appeal turns).

¶34

Court's answer

In view of the Full Bench answer (29.04.2022, W.A.No.3674 of 2019 etc., batch) that a teacher is entitled to only two incentive increments for the entire period of service, the order of the learned single Judge allowing W.P.(MD)No.22935 of 2015 is clearly un-sustainable; it is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed.

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) - Third incentive increment for M.Phil qualification - State of Tamil Nadu and education authorities v. A.Arul Joseph, BT Assistant. The appeal, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, challenged the order dated 18.12.2015 of the learned single Judge allowing W.P.(MD)No.22935 of 2015, in which the first respondent's claim to a third incentive increment for acquiring an M.Phil degree had been allowed solely on the strength of the Division Bench decision dated 15.07.2015 in W.A.(MD)Nos.701 & 769 of 2015 etc., batch (S.Amalraj). Counsel for the appellants drew attention to the Full Bench decision dated 29.04.2022 in W.A.No.3674 of 2019 etc., batch, which answered the reference by holding that a teacher shall be granted only two incentive increments, equivalent to four advance increments, for the entire period of service; the Full Bench held that the view in W.A.No.1664 of 2016 (V.Dhanapal) 'holds good' and that the views in S.Amalraj and in W.A.(MD)No.867 of 2014 (N.Balasoundari) 'cannot be said to be a good law'. In view of that Full Bench answer, this Court found the single Judge's order clearly un-sustainable, set it aside, allowed the Writ Appeal with no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. Bench: G.R.Swaminathan, J. (author) and R.Kalaimathi, J. Decided 10.12.2025.

¶1

W.A(MD) No.1123 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 10.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

W.A(MD) No.1123 of 2016 & C.M.P.(MD)No.6911 of 2016

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Director of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶8

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶9

3.The District Educational Officer, Tenkasi-627 811, Tirunelveli District. ... Appellant / Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.A.Arul Joseph .... Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶12

2.The Correspondent, Punitha Arulappar Higher Secondary School, Avudayanoor-627 808, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent / 4^th Respondent

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.A(MD) No.1123 of 2016

¶16

PRAYER:

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 18.12.2015 passed in W.P. (MD)No.22935 of 2015.

¶18

For Appellants : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate

¶19

For Respondents : No appearance

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶22

This intra-court appeal has been filed by the State questioning the order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.

¶23

(MD)No.22935 of 2015 filed by the first respondent herein.

¶24

2. The first respondent herein was working as BT Assistant in the second respondent school. He sought conferment of the third incentive increment for having acquired M.Phil degree. Since the request was rejected, the said writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on the basis that the issue is squarely covered by the earlier order dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

W.A(MD) No.1123 of 2016

¶28

in W.A.(MD)Nos.701 & 769 of 2015 etc., batch.

¶29

3. The learned Government Advocate draws our attention to the

¶30

Full Bench decision rendered on 29.04.2022 in W.A.No.3674 of 2019

¶31

etc., batch.

¶32

The Full Bench was called upon to answer the reference on the following question:-

¶33

“Whether a teacher is entitled to a third incentive

¶34

increment on account of acquiring an M.Phil qualification or not?”

¶35

The reference was answered in the following terms:-

¶36

“13. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench in W.A.No. 1664 of 2016, dated 29.06.2018 (The Director of School Education and others Vs. V.Dhanapal) that a teacher shall be granted only with two incentive increments, equivalent to four advance increments, for the entire period of his/her service, holds good and the view taken by the Division Bench in W.A. (MD)Nos.701 & 769 of 2015, etc, dated 15.07.2015 (The Director of School Education and others Vs. S.Amalraj) and the view taken by another Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.867 of

¶37

3/5

¶38

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

¶39

W.A(MD) No.1123 of 2016

¶40

2014, dated 18.09.2014 (The Director of School Education and another Vs. N.Balasoundari and another) that a teacher is entitled to the third set of incentive increment, cannot be said to be a good law . We answer the reference accordingly.”

¶41

5. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned single Judge

¶42

is clearly un-sustainable. It is set aside. The Writ Appeal is allowed. No

¶43

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

(G.R.S., J.) (R.K.M., J.) 10.12.2025

¶45

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

¶46

4/5