BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.S. RAMESH, J.
M. Ponvijaya – Appellant
Versus
The District Educational Officer, Vallioor, Tirunelveli District & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD).No. 13502 of 2020 & W.M.P.(MD)No. 11261 of 2020
Decided on : 20-07-2022
Incentive Increments - Teacher's Qualifications - G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.1.1969, G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.8.1986, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - The court quashed the impugned order and directed the first respondent to award incentive increments to the petitioner for her M.A. and M.Ed. degree with effect from the date of appointment i.e., 29.04.1993, with all attendant benefits and privileges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought incentive increments for her M.A. and M.Ed. qualifications from the date of her appointment in 1993, which was rejected by the first respondent based on an undertaking given by the petitioner at the time of her appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to receive incentive increments at the time of entry into service, and the refusal to grant incentive increments based on the undertaking was not justified.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioner to incentive increments for possessing higher educational qualifications from the date of her appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous Division Bench orders and held that the refusal to grant incentive increments for higher qualifications based on an undertaking was not sustainable and violated the right to equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the first respondent was directed to award incentive increments to the petitioner for her M.A. and M.Ed. degree with effect from the date of appointment i.e., 29.04.1993, with all attendant benefits and privileges. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in O.Mu.No.293/A3/2020 dated 12.06.2020 of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to award incentive increments to the petitioner's M.A. and M.Ed., degree with effect from 29.04.1993 with all attendant benefits and privileges in the light of the judgment reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 1349 and order dated 05.03.2018 in W.A.(MD)No.895 of 2013 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.)
The request of the petitioner herein to award the incentive increments for M.A., and M.Ed., qualifications, with effect from the date of appointment i.e., 29.04.1993, has been rejected by the first respondent herein, through the impugned order, dated 12.06.2020, predominantly, on the ground that the petitioner had already given an undertaking at the time of her appointment that she will not claim incentive increments.
2. This issue has been consistently held in favour of the teachers to whom the incentive increments have been denied in view of the undertaking. In one such decision passed in W.P.(MD).No.57 of 2019, dated 28.02.2020, in the case of A.Masanamuthu Vs. The Government of Tamilnadu and others, this ratio was held in the following manner:
'7. The learned single Judge has observed "Incentive increments are granted only for persons acquiring higher qualifications while in service but not to a person, who possesses a higher qualification even before entering into service".
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 efficiently. Therefore, it defies logic as to why a person who had already qualified would not get an incentive increment, if such an incentive increment is given to a lower qualified person in service, who acquires subsequently such higher qualification. Such a differential treatment would not stand the scrutiny of right to equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
9. That apart, if the relevant G.Os are examined carefully, it can be safely concluded that the G.Os in reality do not intend to lay down in the manner it has been now concluded by the learned single Judge. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the G.Os. The underlined portion of G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.1.1969 indicates that if a person possessing higher qualification enters into service, his initial pay may be fixed by giving advance increments. Similarly in the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.8.1986, paragraph 2 makes it clear that "the P.G. teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools who possess or acquire Post Graduate qualification in education i.e. M.Ed., Degree shall be granted two advance increments
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.