SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3819

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
P.M. Alphonse - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of School Education, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. No. 3761 of 2023
Decided On : 10-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Nedunchezhiyan
For the Respondent: T.M. Rajangam

Incentive increments for teachers acquiring higher qualifications are to be granted even without prior permission if obtained before relevant government orders, emphasizing the non-retrospective application of law.

Headnote:(A) G.O(1D) No. 18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Incentive increment for acquiring M.Phil. degree - Petitioner challenged rejection of claim for incentive increment based on lack of entry in service records. Court held that prior judgments reinforce the entitlement of teachers for incentive increments based on qualifications acquired before a specific government order. (Paras 4, 12, 14)

(B) Ratification and Prior Permission - Government order provision for incentive incremental benefits requires prior permission for pursuing additional qualifications. The court clarified that non-retrospective application of G.O.Ms.No.37 maintains the eligibility of teachers who acquired higher qualifications before the issuance of the order. (Paras 11, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a B.T. Assistant, sought an incentive increment for his M.Phil. degree which was not noted in his service records due to a lack of prior permission. Previous judgments supported the notion that teachers acquiring qualifications subsequently should still be considered for increments.

Findings of Court:
The prior order refusing increment was quashed; the respondents were directed to sanction the increment as per G.O. guidelines, including all benefits within eight weeks.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to an incentive increment despite not having permission for additional qualifications and the implications of the retrospective application of government orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior court rulings indicated that incentives should not be withheld due to clerical omissions regarding qualifications acquired, as long as they were obtained before relevant government orders. The court emphasized the necessity to honor educational advancements accordingly.

Result: Writ petition allowed; incentive increment to be sanctioned with benefits.

Table of Content
1. eligibility for incentive increment based on m.phil. qualification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's representation for increment rejection based on service record. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court references earlier judgments pertinent to similar cases. (Para 7 , 8)
4. court quashes impugned decision directing the grant of increments. (Para 10)
5. court analysis of prior permission requirement and retrospective effect of g.o. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. quashing of impugned proceedings and directing sanction of incentive increment. (Para 14)
7. final order allowing the writ petition. (Para 15)

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5158/Aa3/2021 dated 30.11.2021 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to sanction incentive increment to the petitioners for acquiring M.Phil., degree as per G.O(1D)No.18, School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 in ratification of M.Phil., degree obtained by the petitioner in the year 2013, without entry in the service record, with all consequential and other attendant benefits, including arrears of salary, within a stipulated period.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as B.T.Assistant (Maths) in School Education on 16.09.2005. While so, he acquired higher qualification of M.Phil., degree after obtaining permission from the Headmaster of the school, whereas the same has not been entered in the Service Record since the M.Phil., degree is not relevant for promotion or for incentive.

3. The Government issued orders in G.O(1D).No.18 School Education Department dated 18.01.2013 to grant incentive increment for M.Ed., or M.Phil., or Ph.D., degree on condition that a teacher is entitled for two incentive increments in his entire service career. Since M.Ed., degree was dispensed with in Correspondence Course, the Government has decided to sanction incentive increment for M.Phil., or Ph.D., degree as per G.O(1D).No.18 dated 18.01.2013.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Petitioner submitted representation seeking for an incentive increment for having acquired M.Phil., degree as per G.O.(1D).No.18 dated 18.01.2013, whereas the same has not been considered in view of the fact that there was no entry in the Service Record for the same. The Government issued orders in Govt.Letr.(1D).No.356/School Education dated 02.11.2007 ratifying the M.Phil., degree obtained by teachers in the category of Headmaster and P.G.Assistant without availing permission from the department with instructions that in the event of any higher qualifications acquired in the future, it will be resulting in disciplinary action against the concerned teacher. When the Government has decided to grant an incentive increment for M.Phil., degree in respect of B.T. Assistant teachers as per G.O(1D).No.18 dated 18.01.2013, the M.Phil., degree obtained by him without prior permission ought to be ratified by the department.

5. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted representation to the department seeking a grant of incentive increment. The 1st Respondent issued proceedings in Na.Ka.No.069381/K/E1/2018 dated 21.10.2020 calling for the list of teachers who acquired higher qualifications prior to 09.03.2020 in order to sanction an incentive increment for the same. However, the Petitioner was not considered for grant of an incentive increment even as per the proceedings of 1st Respondent dated 21.10.2020 on the premises that the Petitioner has not availed permission to study for an M.Phil., degree.

6. The Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.7958 of 2021, wherein this Court passed orders dated 29.03.2021, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 03.10.2013 and 08.11.2013 and pass orders within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

7. Consequen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top