Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. POORNIMA, J.
Raja Mohamed - Petitioner
Versus
The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.18917 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.13666 of 2016
Decided On : 21-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's qualifications and incentive claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent's denial of incentive increment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's view on government orders and entitlement. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. court's interpretation of eligibility criteria for increments. (Para 7) |
| 5. determinations of the court regarding the appeal outcome. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. clarification on relevant subjects for incentive. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 7. writ petition allowed and order set aside. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.Mu.No.8005/ A4/2015 dated 20.07.2016 on the file of the respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 4th respondent to approve the refixation of salary of the petitioner by granting incentive increment to the petitioner for M.C.A., degree with effect from 15.09.2011 with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief case of the writ petitioner are as follows:
(a) The petitioner completed B.Sc Physics degree in the year 2001 and later completed M.C.A degree in the year 2004. He had also completed B.Ed degree in the year 2010. Subsequently, he was appointed in the post of B.T. Assistant in Science at Pachaiyappa High School, Uppukkottai, Theni District on 15.09.2011 and working in the above said school for the past five years without any blemish in service. The said school is a Government aided school which comes under the control of the fourth respondent.
(b) The Government Order regarding incentive increment in G.O.(Ms)No.324, Education, Science and Technology Department (E2)dated 25.04.1995 provides as follows:
“5. The Government accordingly direct that i. The conditions (i)and (ii) in para 3 of G.O.(Ms)No.624 Education dated 13.07.1992 be deleted. (ii) for the sanction of incentive increment, subject in the higher secondary syllabus shall be the relevant subject. (iii) in respect of the teachers in physical education, they are eligible for incentive for air qualification only in physical education. (iv) these orders will take retrospective effect from 17.9.1986 to cover fast cases. (v) The teachers who have acquired higher qualification in subject, other than higher secondary syllabus shall not be eligible for any incentive increment.”
(c) The petitioner further stated that based on the above Government Order he is entitled for incentive increment for possessing M.C.A., degree as it is relevant subject and Computer Science is in the Higher Secondary syllabus. He had submitted a representation to the Secretary of Pachaiyappa High School, Uppukkottai for granting incentive increments based on his representation, the Secretary of the School refixed his salary by way of granting incentive increment for M.C.A., degree and forwarded the said proposal to the respondent No.4 on 23.12.2015.
(d) The petitioner further stated that without considering the proposal for approval of granting incentive increment, respondent No.4 rejected by way of impugned order dated 19.07.2016, erroneously without any application of mind has referred to the order, G.O.(Ms)No. 240 School Education Department, dated 18.08.2010, which was exclusively issued for the Vocational Instructors and has failed to note that he has not claiming incentive increment based on the Government Order.
(e) The petitioner further stated that in the G.O.(Ms)No.324 dated 25.4.1995, in which it has been categorically stated that he is entitled for incentive increment for higher qualification in a relevant subject in higher secondary syllabus. The respondent No.4 ought to have granted approval to the fixation of pay scale by way of granting incentive increment as Computer Science which is a subject in Higher Secondary syllabus.
(f) The petitioner further stated that a person named Mr.G.Suresh Kumar has sought for information regarding whether G.O.(Ms).No.324 dated 25.4.1995 is in existence and whether the ince
Educational qualifications eligible for incentive increments must align with roles specified by government orders relevant to the Higher Secondary syllabus, ensuring teachers receive due recognition ....
Petitioner entitled to incentive increment for M.C.A. degree as it pertains to the Higher Secondary syllabus, despite conflicting Government Orders.
Teachers are entitled to incentive increments for higher qualifications relevant to the subjects they teach, as established by G.O. provisions, despite contrary departmental letters.
Payment of incentive increments based on higher qualifications gained should not be reclaimed unless based on misrepresentation or fraud.
The court affirmed that teachers are entitled to incentive increments for higher qualifications in any subject part of the higher secondary syllabus, overriding contrary administrative clarifications....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a teacher is entitled to get two incentive increments in his entire service and that the grant of third incentive increment is impermissible.
Incentive increment is a concession granted to encourage teachers to acquire higher educational qualifications relevant to the subject they teach, and recovery of incentive increment after more than ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the incentive increment for M.Phil. degree is to be granted from the date of the Government order, and the scheme of incentive increment is a ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
