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.

JUDGMENT :

C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

These writ appeals are arising against the orders of the learned single Judge, which dealt with the withdrawal of the incentive increment in pursuance of the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education dated 24.08.2016, and the consequential impugned proceedings, dated 17.06.2025.

2. Since all the writ appeals are arising against the withdrawal of the incentive increment given to the teachers, they are all taken together for common disposal.

3. For convenience's sake, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the writ Court.

4(a).The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of these writ appeals are that, these petitioners are holding the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers, B.T Assistants, Elementary School Headmasters and Middle School Headmasters in the respondent department. While the petitioners were working in the posts referred to above, they used to take classes for Std. I to VIII. The petitioners, on acquiring higher educational qualifications like M.A., M.Sc., M.Ed., claimed incentive increment on the strength of G.O.Ms No.42 dated 10.01.1969.

4(b). The Government has passed various G.Os regarding incentive increment, in G.O.Ms No.624 dated 13.07.1992, G.O.Ms No.1023 dated 09.12.1993, G.O.Ms No.1024 dated 09.12.1993 and G.O.Ms No.324 dated 25.04.1995. It is the specific submission of the petitioners that, by virtue of G.O.Ms .No.324 dated 25.04.1995, certain condition stipulated in G.O.Ms .No. 624 dated 13.07.1992, so far as to the extent of restricting the area of specialization of higher qualification, was withdrawn and the teachers were granted liberty to acquire higher qualification in any one of the subjects in the higher Secondary syllabus.

4 (c). While so, the respondents issued general clarificatory proceedings on 24.08.2016, in and by which, they withdrew the scheme of incentive increments to the subject, which are not relevant to the classes Ist to VIII Std. Based on such clarificatory proceedings, the respondents issued recovery order. Aggrieved with the same, the individual teachers preferred several writ petitions. In one set of writ petitions, this Court has accepted the contention of the Government regarding relevancy of subject and dismissed the petition. However, in another batch of writ petitions, this Court negated the Government’s contention and allowed the writ petition. Against such orders, both the teachers and the Government have filed the present Writ Appeals.

5. In all these appeals, the central issue, which requires our adjudication is, whether the higher qualification should be with reference to the subject relevant to the classes I to VIII Std., or in any subject that are in the Higher Secondary syllabus. If this Court arrives at a conclusion that the Higher Secondary syllabus is sufficient, then all the writ appeals of the Government are liable to be dismissed. If the above question is answered negatively, then all the Teachers' appeals are to be dismissed.

6. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates, for the petitioners, and Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

7.(a)The main contention put forth by Mr Lajapathi Roy is, by virtue of G.O.Ms No.324 dated 25.04.1995, the restrictions imposed in the earlier G.O.Ms No.624 dated 13.07.1992, were relaxed, thereby the teachers were given liberty to claim incentive increment based upon