JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned letter of the first respondent in Lr. No. 129 School Education Paka-5(2) 2013-1, dated 17.07.2013 and the consequent impugned order of 3rd respondent in Na. Ka. No. 4797/A3/2013 dated 16.07.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to fix the pay and increment of the petitioner for acquiring M.Phil. qualification from the date of her joining as B.T. Assistant as on 23.03.2007.

1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 17.07.2013 and the consequent order of the third respondent, dated 16.07.2013 and to direct the respondent to fix the pay and increment of the petitioner for acquiring M.Phil. qualification from the date of her joining as B.T. Assistant as on 23.03.2007.

2. The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant (Mathematics) on 23.03.2007 and her service was regularized from the date of her appointment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed M.Sc. and M.Phil. even before her appointment. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to incentive increment for having higher qualification even at the time of appointment. It is also admitted that the petitioner was also given incentive increment for possessing higher qualification, when she was appointed. However, by the impugned order dated 17.07.2013, a direction was issued by the first respondent to the Head Masters of all the Schools in the District to recover the amount, which was paid to the teachers by way of incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification. By the impugned order dated 17.07.2013, the entitlement of graduate teachers to get incentive increment for acquiring higher qualification from the date of G.O. is recognized. However, it is stated that the teachers are not entitled to such incentive increment before the issuance of G.O. Hence, it is contended that the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be quashed in view of the judgment of this Court in several cases holding that the incentive increment should be given not only to those persons, who acquired qualifications subsequently, but also to persons, who are appointed with higher qualification.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R. Premkumari vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2008) 5 MLJ 1349, wherein the appellant therein was working as Post Graduate Assistant in a Government aided School with effect from 04.11.1996. At the time of appointment, the appellant had obtained M.A. (English), B.Ed. and M.Phil. and M.Ed. The appellant was granted incentive increment for having obtained M.Ed., qualification and another incentive increment for having obtained M.Phil. qualification. On the basis of the letter issued by the Director of School Education, dated 18.10.2000 indicating that the teachers, who are appointed between 01.01.1996 and 13.04.1998 were not eligible to incentive increments, a recovery order was issued that was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The appellant preferred an appeal. However, the appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench is extracted hereunder:

“8. We do not think the aforesaid observation of the learned single Judge can stand the scrutiny of logic or even reality. The obvious intention in granting an incentive increment is for attracting higher qualified people or for encouraging the existing employees to acquire higher qualification, even though in service, so that the quality of service would improve. This is obviously on the assumption that a higher qualified person could work more efficie