The court affirmed that teachers are entitled to incentive increments for higher qualifications, regardless of prior permission for study mode.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in proceedings having Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.786/E14/2019 dated 17.05.2019 raising audit objection to the grant of incentive to the petitioner who is working as B.T. Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School, Kallapadi, Gudiyatham, Vellore District from 16.03.2023 for the M.Phil Degree obtained through part time mode and ordering recovery of the incentive granted to the petitioner from the salary of the petitioner from 14.08.2018 and quash the same as arbitrary and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to continue to pay the incentive amount to the petitioner for having acquired M.Phil Degree through part time along with the petitioner's salary.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as a B.T. Assistant in GMM School, Gudiyatham, Vellore District on 14.09.2005 and the petitioner was transferred on 02.03.2010 by unit transfer to Government Municipal Higher Secondary School, Kokkallur, Gudiyattam, Vellore District. At present he is working in Government Higher Secondary School, Kallapadi, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. The petitioner was granted permission by the first respondent to pursue M.Phil degree and completed M.Phil in the year 2018. For the same the fourth respondent sanctioned salary increment in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.23714/C2/E3/2016 dated 30.06.2016. Subsequently, second incentive for M.Phil degree was given to the petitioner with effect from 14.08.2018. The second respondent issued proceedings vide Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.786/E14/2019, dated 17.05.2019 raising audit objections for the grant of incentive for M.Phil degree which was obtained through part time mode. Further the audit department directed the fourth respondent to compute the loss suffered by the Government for the grant of salary incentive to the petitioner and ordered to recover the said loss from the salary of the petitioner. Challenging the same the petitioner came up with the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sri Chandrasekharaendra Saraswathi Viswa Mahavidyalaya University, Kancheepuram was declared as Deemed to be University under Section 3 of University Grant Commission, 1956 by Ministry of Human Resource Development on the advice of University Grants Commission as per the Notification No.F.9-9/92-U3 dated 26.05.1993 by Government of India, hence Sri Chandrasekharaendra Saraswathi Viswa Mahavidyalaya University is duly recognized by UGC. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this Court in supporting their contentions in W.A.No.2328 of 2018, wherein the Division Bench allowed writ appeal not to cancel or stop the increment already given. The petitioners are entitled for the said incentive and prayed to allow the writ petition.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader contends that the Internal audit wing of the school education department took the view that the Government Letter No.268/Higher Education (K2) Department dated 29.08.2006 and GO No.91 Higher Education (K2) Department dated 03.04.2009 and the proceedings of the Director of School Education in reference No.Na.Ka.No.081477/KE/2014 dated 27.10.2014 from the academic year 2007-08 the degrees by Correspondence / Distance Education Mode / Open University / Part time are ineligible for appointment in Government service. Hence the Government of Tamil Nadu has not granted permission to obtain the M.Phil / Ph.D degree in correspondence / Part Time mode and having obtained the higher education degree through unrecognised mode the petitioner's incentive increments from 14.08.2018 is withdrawn. In this case, the petitioner has obtained the M.Phil which cannot be accepted as an appropriate degree and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents also would contend that the petitioner cannot ask for quashing the impugned order on the bas