Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

User Queries
Madras High Court
Sudalaimuthu vs The Director Of School Education on 14 September, 2012

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 14/09/2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

W.P.No.11450 of 2012

and

M.P(MD).No.1 of 2012

Sudalaimuthu ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director of School Education,

Chennai-6.

2.The District Educational Officer,

Thuckalay,

Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents

PRAYER

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5111/A1,2011, dated 19.03.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction 1 set of incentive increment for M.Phil to the petitioner with effect from 29.05.1997 and confer all the consequential benefits.

!For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Selvakumaran

^For Respondents... Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, AGP

:ORDER

***********

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 19.3.2012, vide which the petitioner has been declined the incentive increment for possessing the qualification of M.Phil.

2.The translated copy of the impugned order reads as follow:- "Proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Thucklay R.C.No.5111/A1/2011, dated 19.03.2012

Sub: Incentive increment to M.Phil Higher Educational Qualification sanction requested - Regarding

Ref: 1.Govt. order (ID) No.209 dated 08.02.2012

2.Application of S.Chudalamuthu, Keelavannanvilai

Your M.Phil original certificate requesting third incentive increment for your M.Phil Higher Educational Qualification has been returned herewith. Third incentive increment has been sanctioned to Mr.Kasikani as per the order of the Madras High Court Madurai Branch. It is applicable only to the particular individual. Therefore your applications can not be accepted. Enclosures : Original certificates and enclosed copies of the letter.

(Signed)

District Educational Officer

Thucklay

21.03.2012.

3.The petitioner joined as B.T.Assistant on 24.06.1967 in Government High School, Thyagadurgam and was promoted as P.G.Assistant on 23.08.1991. He acquired M.Ed in January-1982 and M.A., in August-1984. The petitioner was granted first incentive increment on 09.01.1982 and second incentive increment on 21.08.1984. The petitioner acquired the qualification of M.Phil in the year 1996 and thereafter retired from service on 31.05.2001.

4.The State Government issued orders sanctioning incentive increment for M.Phil., for P.G. Assistant vide G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education Department, dated 20.12.1993. The petitioner, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to the grant of incentive increment for M.Phil. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the judgment passed by this Court holding that the employee on acquiring M.Phil., was entitled to incentive increment, was only applicable to the petitioners therein and not to others.

5.It is the admitted case that the Government issued instructions vide G.O.Ms.No.1170, Education Department, dated 20.12.1993. for grant of one incentive increment i.e., two advance increments for acquiring M.Phil, Ph.D or PGDTE qualifications, but this benefit was restricted to persons who possessed the qualification as on 1.3.1993. It was also mentioned that this incentive was not to be extended in future.

6.This decision of the State Government in restricting the benefit of increment only to persons who obtained M.Phil/PhD as on 1.3.1993 was challenged before this Court filing a writ petition. That writ petition was allowed, it was directed that the benefit be also extended to those employees who acquired M.Phil after 1.3.1993.

7.It is not in dispute that thereafter G.O.Ms.No.285, Department of School Education, was issued on 28.11.2007 to take away the right of the third incentive increment on acquiring M.Phil degree. it is on account of the issuance of the order G.O.Ms.No.285, dated 28.11.2007, that the petitioner has been denied the benefit, on the ground that the decision of this court was applicable only to the petitioner therein and not to others.

8.It is also not in dispute that vide G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 10.10.2006, the stipulation fixing date of 1.3.1993 for grant of incentive increment for M.Phil was deleted.

9.Learned Additional Government Pleader states that the impugned order does not call for any interference as it has been decided by this Government to extend the benefit of 3rd incentive increment for M.Phil only to those who had approached this Court to challenge the Government Order restricting the benefit of 3rd increment, only to those persons who challenged the order of fixing the date 1.3.1993 for grant of incentive increment.

10.On consideration I find that the the petition deserves to succeed. The petitioner admittedly acquired the M.Phil., degree, after 1.3.1993. It is not in dispute that the Government had decided to delete the cut of date of "1.3.1993" for grant of incentive of two increments to the personnels acquiring the qualification of M.Phil.,

11.The instructions vide order dated 8.1.2008 restricting the incentive only two increments can not be retrospectively to take away the accrued right to the employees under the instructions of the Government for grant of incentive, nor it is permissible for the respondent to restrict the benefit to only the writ petitioners. This Court had laid down that the personnels who acquired the qualification even after 1.3.1993 were also eligible for grant of incentive.

12.The petitioner admittedly acquired the M.Phil qualification prior to 10.10.2006 when G.O.Ms.No.194 was issued extending the benefit by deleting the cut of date 1.3.1993 from the G.O.Ms.No.1170. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner is thus eligible under the Government instructions for grant of 3rd incentive for acquiring the qualification of M.Phil.

13.Consequently the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the first respondent to grant incentive increment to the petitioner for acquiring the M.Phil degree from due date till his retirement, and consequently, fix the last pay drawn by the petitioner on the day of his retirement to fix his pension as per the revised pay. The arrears arising by this exercise will be restricted to 3 years 2 months prior to the date of filing of this writ petition.

14.This exercise shall be completed with in three months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

No cost. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. ssv

To

1.The Director of School Education, Chennai-6.

2.The District Educational Officer,