AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The Writ Petitioner is the appellant. He preferred Writ Petition No. 2255 of 1996 against the order of the fourth
respondent-Accounts Officer (Audit), School Education, Madurai-2, in Na.Ka. No. 6301/A4/95, dated 7.2.1996 and the consequential order
issued by the fifth respondent-Correspondent, St.Mary''s Higher Secondary School, Pothakalanvilai, Chidambaranar District, dated 20.2.1996. In
the said Writ Petition, further prayer was made to direct the respondents to pay the salary with increments till January 1996.
The learned single Judge, while was of the view that it was second time the benefit of incentive increments which were granted, to which only
one-time a Teacher is entitled to, on acquiring higher M.Ed. qualification, dismissed the Writ Petition-vide impugned order dated 30.11.2001 in
W.P. No. 2255 of 1996.
The only question for determination is whether on appointment to the services of the School of the fifth respondent, as a post-graduate
Assistant, the appellant-Writ Petitioner was entitled to avail incentive increments having acquired higher qualification, viz. M.Ed.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant who had passed B.A. and M.A. Degrees from Madurai Kamaraj University and B.Ed. and
M.Ed. degrees from Annamalai University, was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on passing Teacher Training Certificate course on
1.6.1981 in St. Thomas Middle School, Kurichi, Palayamkottai. Subsequently, he was transferred to Bishop Roche R.C.Primary School,
Keelaambalacherry (Tuticorin R.C. Diocese) from 9.11.1982. Again, he was transferred to R.C. Middle School, Saveriapupram on 1.2.1983
under the same Management and was promoted as middle school Headmaster and posted to St. Antony''s School from 10.6.1985.
Having acquired M.A. degree, he was initially granted two incentive increments from 14.5.1986 and for acquiring B.Ed. degree, he was
sanctioned one incentive increment from 1.4.1986; two other incentive increments were allowed with effect from 23.1.1986 for having passed
M.Ed. degree; thereby, he was provided with four incentive increments for acquiring higher qualifications. One more incentive increment was
granted for training qualification of B.Ed. The appellant subsequently resigned from the services of the School of the fifth respondent, having been
appointed as P.G. Assistant (History Teacher) on 1.2.1989. That being the very appointment in the School of the fifth respondent on 1.2.1989,
two incentive increments were allowed for acquiring M.Ed. qualification with effect from 1.2.1989 in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 747, Finance (Pay
Cell) Department, dated 18.8.1986. The third respondent-District Educational Officer, Tuticorin also approved the sanction of abovesaid two
incentive increments for acquiring M.Ed. qualification.
Again, the fifth respondent-Correspondent of the School sanctioned advance increments of Rs. 60/- for B.Ed. training qualification with effect
from 1.2.1989 to the appellant/Writ Petitioner in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 745, dated 4.6.1990. The said increment for B.Ed. degree was also
sanctioned to all other graduate Teachers.
On 5.4.1995, the fifth respondent-Correspondent of the School issued a Memo asking the appellant/Writ Petitioner to submit explanation as to
the incentive increments for B.Ed. and M.Ed. qualifications in the fifth respondent-School, be not cancelled, having been granted such a benefit in
the earlier School. The appellant submitted his reply and denied the allegation. It is only thereafter the fourth respondent-Accounts Officer (Audit),
School Education, Madurai-2, vide his order dated 7.2.1996, directed the fifth respondent-Correspondent of St. Mary''s Higher Secondary
School, to recover the amount from the appellant. Thereafter, the fifth respondent-Correspondent of the School passed order dated 20.2.1996
directing the appellant/Writ Petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 28,295/-, which was received by him allegedly second time for B.Ed. and M.Ed.
qualifications.
As stated above, the learned single Judge, on a presumption that the appellant/Writ Petitioner was allowed the benefit of incentive increment for
the second time in the School of the fifth respondent, refused to interfere with the orders of the fourth and fifth respondents, dated 7.2.1996 and
20.2.1996 respectively, and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Before this Court also, the respondents have taken similar view that the appellant, having been allowed the benefit of incentive increments for
higher qualifications, is not entitled for such a benefit for the second time in the School of the fifth respondent.
We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned single Judge and the Government
Orders issued from time to time as on record.
It appears that on the basis of the recommendation of One Man Committee, the Government of Tamil Nadu, under the Government Order in
G.O. Ms. No. 747, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 18.8.1986, decided to grant incentive increments for acquiring additional qualifications.
The abovesaid G.O. Ms. No. 747 reads as follows:
Government of Tamil Nadu
Abstract
One Man Committee � Recommendations of the Committee � Education Department � Incentive Increments for M.Ed., qualification �
Orders � issued.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finance (Pay Cell) Department
G.O.Ms. No. 747 Dated: 18th August, 1986
Atohayya, Avani 2,
Thiruvalluvar Andu, 2017.
Read:
G.O.Ms. No. 1267, Finance (Pay Cell) dated 8-12-85.
ORDER:
At present incentive increments are given to teachers for acquiring additional qualifications. Under the existing orders, School Assistants and
Headmasters of High Schools who possess or acquire M.Ed., are eligible for two advance increments. This Scheme of incentive increments has
not been extended to P.G. Teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools. Representations for extending the benefits under the scheme
of incentive increment for additional qualification to P.G. Teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools were made to the One Man
Committee constituted in the G.O. read above. The Committee after examining the requests has recommended that the scheme may be extended
to these teachers also and that a P.G. Teacher or a Headmaster in the Higher Secondary School may be given two advance increments for M.Ed.,
qualification.
The Government accept the recommendation of the One Man Committee and issue the following orders:
i) The P.G. Teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools who possess or acquired post-graduate qualification in education i.e.,
M.Ed., Degree shall be granted two advance increments in the scale of pay admissible to them.
ii) The increments now sanctioned shall be granted in addition to their normal annual increments.
iii) Such of the teachers/Headmasters who have already availed themselves of the incentive increments for M.Ed., qualification under the existing
scheme of incentive payments to teachers for acquiring higher qualifications are not eligible to draw the increments now sanctioned in this order.
iv) These orders will apply to all higher Secondary Schools under all types of Managements.
v) These orders shall take effect from 1.4.1986.
(By order of the Governor)
C. Ramachandran
Commissioner & Secretary to Government.
From the aforesaid G.O.Ms. No. 747, it is evident that there is a provision to grant incentive increments if a person has possessed or acquired
higher qualification. It is not in dispute that the appellant having acquired higher qualifications, is entitled for incentive increments in terms of the
abovesaid G.O.Ms. No. 747. What is in dispute is that whether he has been allowed for the second time such a benefit of additional increments or
it was only one-time.
The appellant has specifically pleaded that he resigned from the earlier School subsequently having been appointed as P.G. Assistant (History)
on 1.2.1989 in the School of the fifth respondent. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that on
fresh appointment as P.G. Assistant in the School of the fifth respondent, the pay of the appellant was fixed counting the period of service rendered
in the earlier School(s), taking into account the pay as was drawn by the appellant in the earlier School(s). Such allegation having not been made, it
will be evident that it was a fresh appointment of the appellant in the School of the fifth respondent on 1.2.1989. So, whatever the earlier benefit
granted to him in the other School(s), had already been granted in the earlier School(s), did not continue when he was given fresh appointment in
the School of the fifth respondent, and the same being new appointment, we are of the view that he was entitled for the benefit of incentive
increments for acquiring higher qualifications in terms of the aforesaid G.O.Ms. No. 747 in the School of the fifth respondent and thereby, there
was no illegality committed if he was allowed again incentive increments in the School of the fifth respondent.
Further, as the benefit of incentive increments was granted to him by the fifth respondent-School and was not on account of any mis-
representation made by the appellant, it was not desirable for the authorities to recover the amount. The aforesaid aspect has neither been
considered by the fourth and fifth respondents, nor by the learned single Judge.
We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the fourth respondent dated 7.2.1996 in Na.Ka. No. 6301/A4/95 and the fifth respondent,
dated 20.2.1996 and the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.11.2001 in W.P. No. 2255 of 1996 and allow the Writ Petition. We direct
the respondents to pay the appellant/Writ Petitioner the benefit to which he is entitled to, including the amount if any recovered, within a period of
two months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment, failing which, the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 8% per
annum from the date the appellant/Writ Petitioner was so entitled to.
We have also been informed that during the pendency of this Writ Appeal, the services of the appellant/Writ Petitioner have been terminated
from the School of the fifth respondent, against which, the appellant has already preferred a Writ Petition before this Court. As the said matter is
not before us, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the same.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Writ Appeal is allowed. But there shall be no order as to costs. W.A.M.P. is closed.