Point of Law: Appellants are not justified in contending that M.Ed. degree cannot be relied upon by first respondent for claiming increment - Thus first respondent is entitled for payment of incentive increment for acquisition of M.Ed. qualification with effect from 02.06.2003.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1020 of 2019, dated 28.02.2020.)

1. The Writ Appeal has been filed by the Government is directed against the order dated 28.02.2020, in W.P.(MD) No.1020 of 2019, filed by the first respondent herein, who is a Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent school, an aided non-minority institution.

2. The first respondent prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash G.O.Ms.No.8 School Education (Elementary Education 1(2) Department, 28.04.2017, insofar as the clause refusing monetary benefits from the date of passing higher qualification and to quash the consequential order passed by the third appellant in A1/793/17 dated 26.10.2017, and consequently, to direct the appellants to award incentive increment to the first respondent for his M.Ed. degree with effect from 02.06.2003. In support of his submission, the first respondent/Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in R.Premkumari v. State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary to Government and others reported in 2008(5) MLJ 1349.

3. The appellants resisted the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, stating that the first respondent had given an undertaking that he will not claim incentive increment. The correctness of the said stand was decided by the learned Writ Court after placing reliance on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in R.Premkumari v. State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary to Government and others reported in in W.A.(MD).Nos.895 of 2013 and 336, 874 and 1190 of 2016, dated 05.03.2018 in the matter of The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai and others v. The Correspondent, St. Joseph Middle School, Devakottai Extension, Sivagangai District and Others and the Judgment in W.A.(MD) No.511 of 2011, dated 27.06.2011, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Louis allowed the Writ Petition and directed the appellants to award incentive increment to the first respondent for acquiring M.Ed., degree. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us by way of this Writ Appeal.

4. We have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. The contentions advanced by the appellants before the learned Writ Court is not seriously pressed into service before us. The appellants before the learned Writ Court had stated that the first respondent had given an undertaking that he will not claim any incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification and contrary to the undertaking a claim cannot be entertained. This contention was negatived by the Writ Court by rightly placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in R.Premkumari (supra) and two other decisions. We find there is no error to interfere with the said order.

6. Before us, the learned Special Government Pleader raised a different contention, which was not specifically raised before the learned Writ Court. The contention being that the first respondent has acquired his M.Ed. in the year 1998 and on the said date the first respondent having not completed the one month Child Psychology Training given to Graduate Teachers, who were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher between 11.07.1995 to 19.05.1998, would not be entitled to any benefit on account of acquiring such higher qualification.

7. The undisputed facts are that the first respondent, a graduate teacher was appointed as secondary grade teacher and the Government by G.O.Ms.No. 559, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 11.07.1995, directed cancellation of the appointments on the ground that they do not possess a Diploma in Teacher Education. The fact being that due to lack of candidates possessing Diploma in Teacher Education, Graduate Teachers were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers with a specific condition that they will not cl