Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4669 (MAD)

M. Murugesan v. The Accountant General, Chennai

2010-10-22

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner joined as Higher Grade Teacher on 21.06.1962. He was promoted as Elementary School Headmaster on 20.08.1963. While he was working as Elementary School Headmaster, he obtained M.A in 1978 and B.Ed., in 1980. He was granted two incentives for acquiring M.A and B.Ed., each incentive consists of two increments. Hence he was granted four increments for acquiring M.A and B.Ed. Thereafter, he was promoted as Middle School Headmaster with effect from 29.12.1992. As he obtained M.Ed., degree, he was granted one incentive for the same i.e., he was granted two increments for acquiring M.Ed. 2. After his retirement, the first respondent passed an order dated 02.07.1996 and 27.07.1999, seeking to recover the incentive increments given for M.Ed., course. 3. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Original Application in O.A.No.5699 of 2000 (W.P.No.48092 of 2006) to quash the aforesaid orders dated 02.07.1996 and 27.07.1999 of the first respondent. 4. While admitting the Original Application, the Tribunal granted interim order. 5. Heard Mr.K.Thennan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Ms.C.Devi, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no limit for grant of incentive increments if the teachers obtained degrees before 09.12.1993. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in granting incentive increment for M.Ed., course. He relies on the proceedings dated 25.06.1994 of the Director of School Education Department, Chennai in this regard, that is enclosed at page No.8 of the typed-set of papers. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not issued notice and his views were not obtained. Hence, the impugned order was passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents seeks to sustain the impugned order. However no counter is filed. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The petitioner joined the service as Higher Grade Teacher. Thereafter, he passed M.A. and B.Ed, while he served as Elementary School Headmaster. The Government provides incentive increments for teachers who acquire higher qualifications. The purpose of providing incentive increment is that the teachers who acquire higher qualification could be helpful in discharging their duties in a better way and they could academically perform better. Thereafter, he passed M.A. and B.Ed, while he served as Elementary School Headmaster. The Government provides incentive increments for teachers who acquire higher qualifications. The purpose of providing incentive increment is that the teachers who acquire higher qualification could be helpful in discharging their duties in a better way and they could academically perform better. By acquiring higher qualification, the teachers will upgrade their standard and that would ultimately benefit the students. The petitioner also obtained M.Ed., degree before 09.12.1993 and it is not in dispute. He was granted incentive increment for acquiring M.Ed., degree, which was sought to be recovered on the ground that incentive increment could not be granted for more than two occasions. But such a limit was came to be fixed only after 09.12.1993 i.e., if a teacher acquires higher qualifications after 09.12.1993, he is not eligible to incentive increment beyond two times. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained M.Ed., degree before 09.12.1993. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders were passed without notice. Hence, the impugned orders are passed in blatant violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the petitioner was already retired on 30.06.1996. 10. Taking into account, all the aforesaid facts, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.