Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3262 (MAD)

N. Baskara Doss v. Director of School Education

2014-09-11

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.07.2007 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant the third set of incentive increment to the petitioner from the date of acquisition of M.Ed Degree. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 21.8.1971 and he was having the qualification of B.Lit., B.Ed. and thereafter passed M.A. in December 1988. Therefore, the petitioner was given one incentive increment for having acquired B.Lit. degree and another incentive increment for having acquired M.A. Thereafter, the petitioner also completed M.Ed., degree from Madurai Kamaraj University and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get third incentive increment. Having the petitioner applied for the same and that was rejected by the impugned proceedings, the same is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.Nos.11802 to 10806 of 2013 dated 24.7.2013, in the case of K. Nagasubramanian and others v. The Secretary to Government, School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai -9 and others, wherein in similar circumstances, this Court set aside the order of the third respondent and directed the third respondent to consider the proposal of the School authorities for conferring third incentive increments to the persons like that of the petitioners therein on their acquiring M.Phil qualification. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the petitioner herein may also be given the same benefit as per the judgment referred to above. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader opposes by stating that the petitioner is not entitled to third incentive increment and as per G.O.Ms.No.1024, Education Department, dated 9.12.1993, a Teacher is entitled to only two incentive increments in his/her career and that was rightly appreciated by the second respondent and therefore the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader. This Court considered the same issue and passed orders in several petitions including the petitions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and granted third incentive increment to those Teachers, who have already received two increments, for having acquired M.Phil. Degree. Following the same, the petitioner is also entitled to third incentive increment. 6. This Court considered the same issue and passed orders in several petitions including the petitions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and granted third incentive increment to those Teachers, who have already received two increments, for having acquired M.Phil. Degree. Following the same, the petitioner is also entitled to third incentive increment. 6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to grant third incentive increment to the petitioner for having acquired M.Ed. Degree and complete the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.