Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs a.Masanamuthu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
The Government of Tamilnadu Vs a.MasanamuthuThe Government of Tamilnadu v. a.Masanamuthu

Dismissed¶42

The Government of Tamilnadu v. a.Masanamuthu

Madras HC27 Jul 2026REV.APLC(MD)/30/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Subject: incentive increment for teachers acquiring higher qualification after appointment. Keywords: incentive increment; Secondary Grade Teacher; B.A., B.Ed.; M.A. degree; condition in appointment order; review application; Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 CPC; Section 114 CPC; WA(MD)Nos.442 & 616 of 2021; W.P.(MD)No.57 and 1020 of 2019; Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education and Elementary Education Department; District Educational Officer Srivilliputhur / Usilampatti; Block Educational Officer T.Kallupatti; REV.APLC(MD). Parties: State (petitioner) represented by Mr.K.K.Udayakumar; respondents A.Masanamuthu, K.Muniyandi and school secretaries represented by Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar. Outcome: both review applications dismissed, no costs. Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel JJ., order by Karthikeyan J., dated 27-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

None; review applications dismissed with no order as to costs.

Why is it important?

The condition in the appointment orders was imposed only to prevent the writ petitioners, once appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers, from claiming incentive increment for the B.Ed. degree they already possessed; having acquired M.A. degree, the condition cannot be cited as a legal bar. The Court is not in agreement with the State's contention that the coordinate-bench orders require reconsideration. ¶41

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; review applications dismissed with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the condition imposed in the appointment orders that the Secondary Grade Teachers should not seek incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification operates as a legal bar to grant of incentive increment for the M.A. degree acquired after appointment. +1 more

Court's answer

The condition in the appointment orders was imposed only to prevent the writ petitioners, once appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers, from claiming incentive increment for the B.Ed. degree they already possessed; having acquired M.A. degree, the condition cannot be cited as a legal bar. The Court is not in agreement with the State's contention that the coordinate-bench orders require reconsideration.

Ratio / Principle

There is no reason to review the order passed in WA(MD)Nos.442 and 616 of 2021 dated 08.07.2021 and 17.04.2021, respectively; accordingly the review applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel JJ. (order pronounced by C.V. Karthikeyan J.), Madurai Bench, Madras High Court, 27-07-2026: dismissed REV.APLC(MD) Nos.30 of 2022 & 97 of 2021 - review applications filed by the State under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C. seeking review of the orders dated 08.07.2021 and 17.04.2021 in WA.(MD)Nos.442 & 616 of 2021. The writ petitioners, appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers with B.A., B.Ed. under an express condition barring incentive increment for higher qualifications, had their claims for incentive increment on acquiring M.A. degree upheld by the coordinate bench. Held: the appointment-order condition was intended only to prevent a claim based on the B.Ed. degree held at appointment; with an M.A. degree subsequently acquired, it 'cannot be cited as a legal bar'; consequently no ground existed to review the appellate orders.

A

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 27-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

REV.APLC(MD) Nos.30 of 2022 & 97 of 2021

The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education and Elementary Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

The District Educational Officer Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar.

..Petitioners in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.30 of 2022

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,

Rep.by its Secretary to Government, School Education and Elementary Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

3.The Block Educational Offier,

T.Kallupatti, Madurai District.

...Petitioners in

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.97 of 2021

__________ Page1 of 5

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

Vs

1. A.Masanamuthu

The Secretary Thiagaraja Higher Secondary School, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar Dt.

...Respondents in Rev.Aplc (MD)No. 30 of 2022

1.K.Muniyandi

2.The Secretary, Hindu Aided Middle School, Salichandai-625 703, Madurai District.

...Respondents in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.97 of 2021

COMMON PRAYER: Review Applications- filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 08.07.2021 & 17.04.2021 made in WA.(MD)Nos.442 & 616 of 2021 on the file of this Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.K.Udayakumar Counsel for the State For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

The appellants in W.A.(MD)Nos.442 & 616 of 2021 have filed these

review applications seeking to review the orders passed by this Court on 08.07.2021 & 17.04.2021.

Page2 of 5

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

2.The writ petitioners/R1 herein, who are having B.A., B.Ed., qualification respectively, were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers. Later, they made a request for granting incentive increment for acquiring M.A., Degree. The said requests were rejected primarily on the ground that in the appointment orders, there is a condition that they should not seek incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification. The said orders were put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.57 and 1020 of 2019. The said writ petitions came to be allowed by this Court on 28.02.2020 and 11.02.2019.

The State filed W.A(MD)Nos.442 & 616 of 2021 and the writ appeals came to be dismissed on 08.07.2011 & 08.04.2021, respectively. Challenging the said order, the present review applications have been filed.

4.According to the learned Counsel for the State, the writ petitioners, who had acquired the qualification of B.A, B.Ed., at the time of appointment as the Secondary Grade Teacher, were appointed with a specific condition that they should not seek incentive increment. In such circumstances, the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench require reconsideration.

We are not in agreement with the said contention. The said condition was imposed in the appointment order only to see that having appointed in the

Page3 of 5

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

post of Secondary Grade Teacher, the writ petitioners cannot seek incentive increment for having acquired B.Ed., degree. However, the writ petitioners had acquired M.A degree and therefore, this condition imposed in the appointment orders cannot be cited as a legal bar.

6.In view of the reasons, we do not find any reason to review the order passed in WA(MD)Nos.442 and 616 of 2021 dated 08.07.2021 and 17.04.2021, respectively. Hence, these review applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 27-07-2026

Index: Yes Speaking Neutral Citation: Yes/No

ta

__________ Page4 of 5

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

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

ta

REV.APLC(MD) No. 30 of 2022

27-07-2026

__________ Page5 of 5

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the condition imposed in the appointment orders that the Secondary Grade Teachers should not seek incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification operates as a legal bar to grant of incentive increment for the M.A. degree acquired after appointment.¶41
The court held
The condition in the appointment orders was imposed only to prevent the writ petitioners, once appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers, from claiming incentive increment for the B.Ed. degree they already possessed; having acquired M.A. degree, the condition cannot be cited as a legal bar. The Court is not in agreement with the State's contention that the coordinate-bench orders require reconsideration.ratio¶41
2.
Whether there is any reason to review the order passed in WA(MD)Nos.442 and 616 of 2021 dated 08.07.2021 and 17.04.2021, respectively.¶42
The court held
There is no reason to review the order passed in WA(MD)Nos.442 and 616 of 2021 dated 08.07.2021 and 17.04.2021, respectively; accordingly the review applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.ratio¶42

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Civil Procedure CodeOrder XLVII Rule 1 & 2¶27 Section 114¶27

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders dated 08.07.2021 and 17.04.2021 passed in WA.(MD)Nos.442 & 616 of 2021 (dismissing the State's writ appeals upholding the writ petitioners' incentive-increment claims), sought to be reviewed by these review applications.¶27
This Court (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) · 08.07.2021 & 17.04.2021
Prior proceeding
The writ petitioners (holding B.A., B.Ed.) were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers; their requests for incentive increment for acquiring M.A. degree were rejected on the ground of a condition in the appointment orders barring incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification.¶35
Prior proceeding
The rejection orders were challenged in W.P.(MD)No.57 and 1020 of 2019, which were allowed by this Court on 28.02.2020 and 11.02.2019.¶35
Prior proceeding
The State filed W.A(MD)Nos.442 & 616 of 2021; the writ appeals came to be dismissed on the dates printed in the judgment body (08.07.2011 & 08.04.2021).¶36

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education and Elementary Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.¶8
Mr.K.K.Udayakumar
petitioner
The District Educational Officer Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar.¶9
petitioner
The District Educational Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District.¶13
petitioner
The Block Educational Offier, T.Kallupatti, Madurai District.¶14
respondent
A.Masanamuthu¶21
Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
respondent
The Secretary Thiagaraja Higher Secondary School, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar Dt.¶22
respondent
K.Muniyandi¶24
respondent
The Secretary, Hindu Aided Middle School, Salichandai-625 703, Madurai District.¶25

Coram

AI extract

C.V. Karthikeyanauthor¶4
R. Sakthivelmember¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 27 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 1 Feb 2022
Case no.: REV.APLC(MD)/30/2022
CNR: HCMD010992792021
Bench: C.v. Karthikeyan R.sakthivel
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: REV.APLC(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from C.v. Karthikeyan R.sakthivel

Ravi Selvam Vs The District Collector
24 Jul 2026
The Management Vs the Presiding Officer
24 Jul 2026
S.Saravanan, Vs Dr.N.O.Sukhaputra
24 Jul 2026
The Joint Registrar of Co. operative Societies Vs S. Sekar
27 Jul 2026
Ayanan Raja Vs The District Collector
27 Jul 2026
The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Vs J.Jayaseelan David
27 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

The Government of Tamilnadu v. a.Masanamuthu, REV.APLC(MD)/30/2022 (MAD), decided on 27 July 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Civil Procedure CodeOrder XLVII Rule 1 & 2 · Section 114

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Orders dated 08.07.2021 and 17.04.2021 passed in WA.(MD)Nos.442 & 616 of 2021 (dismissing the State's writ appeals upholding the writ petitioners' incentive-increment claims), sought to be reviewed by these review applications.This Court (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) · 08.07.2021 & 17.04.2021
The writ petitioners (holding B.A., B.Ed.) were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers; their requests for incentive increment for acquiring M.A. degree were rejected on the ground of a condition in the appointment orders barring incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification.
The rejection orders were challenged in W.P.(MD)No.57 and 1020 of 2019, which were allowed by this Court on 28.02.2020 and 11.02.2019.

View full history

Bench / Coram

C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel

Parties & counsel