Chandrasekaran vs The Secretary to Government

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 15.09.2026
Pronounced on 16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
and WMP(MD).No.12450 & 17681 of 2023
CNR:{HCMD010674002023}
Chandrasekaran
Physical Education Teacher,
Government Boys Higher Secondary School,
Thatheiyengarpet, Musiri Taluk,
Tiruchirapalli 621214.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education, Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Officer of the Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruchirapalli
3. The Madurai Regional Account Officer (Audit)
School Education Department, Madurai 2
4. The Principal
Government Boys Higher Secondary School,
Thathiengarpet, Musiri Taluk,
Tiruchirapalli 621 214.
5. The Assistant Treasury Officer
Sub Treasury, Musiri, Tiruchirapalli
..Respondent(s)
Prayer : This writ petition has been filed under article 226 of
constitution of India, praying this Court to issue of Writ of Certiorarified
th
Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding of the 4
__________
Page1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
respondent dated 15.05.2023 in Na.Ka.No.22/2023/A1 and
Na.Ka.No.22/2023/A1 which have been passed in consequence to the
nd
proceeding of the 2 respondent dated 09.06.2022 in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.
01999/E2/2021/ and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to pay the revised pay scale as fixed to the petitioner vide
th
proceeding of the 4 respondent in A.AA.303/Nithi/Oo.Ku dated 11.10.2017.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sukumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the
th
impugned proceeding of the 4 respondent dated 15.05.2023 in
Na.Ka.No.22/2023/A1 and Na.Ka.No.22/2023/A1 which have been passed in
nd
consequence to the proceeding of the 2 respondent dated 09.06.2022 in
Se.Mu.Na.Ka. 01999/E2/2021/ and quash the same as illegal and consequently
direct the respondents to pay the revised pay scale as fixed to the petitioner vide
th
proceeding of the 4 respondent in A.AA.303/Nithi/Oo.Ku dated 11.10.2017.
2. The petitioner is working as a Physical Education Teacher (hereinafter
referred to as “PET”) in the Secondary Grade Teacher Pay Scale in the 4th
respondent School and has rendered about 18 years of unblemished service. She
possesses B.A. (History) and M.P.Ed. qualifications and, on the basis of the said
__________
Page2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
qualifications, was appointed as PET on 04.02.2005.
3. The petitioner contends that after obtaining the prior permission of the 4th
respondent, the petitioner pursued M.Phil. in Physical Education and Sports
Science and completed the same in March 2011. Thereafter, she pursued a Post
Graduate Diploma in Yoga through distance education mode and completed the
said course in May 2017. In respect of PETs, G.O.Ms.No.324 dated 25.04.1995
provided for grant of incentive increment for acquiring an M.Phil. qualification
in Physical Education. Accordingly, the first incentive increment was
sanctioned by the 4th respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka./2014/A1 dated
November 2014, with effect from 09.03.2011, on the basis of her acquisition of
M.Phil. in Physical Education and Sports Science.
4. It is further contended that, subsequently, the Government introduced a
scheme providing for a second incentive increment to Physical Education
Teachers. In this regard, G.O.Ms.No.177, School Education Department, dated
13.10.2016, was issued. Clause 1(c) thereof contemplated grant of a second
incentive increment to eligible Physical Education Teachers possessing the
qualifications prescribed therein, including M.Phil./Ph.D. in Physical Education
or P.G. Diploma in Yoga, subject to the terms and conditions contained therein.
Since the petitioner had acquired a P.G. Diploma in Yoga, he was granted the
second incentive increment and her pay was revised accordingly by the 4th
__________
Page3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
respondent vide proceedings in A.A.A.303/Nithi/Oo.Ku. dated 11.10.2017, with
effect from 01.06.2017.
5. The petitioner contends that while the matter stood thus, the 4th
respondent, without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner, issued the
impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.22/2023/A1 dated 15.05.2023, cancelling
the second incentive increment already granted to her and directing recovery of
the amount paid towards the said increment with effect from 01.06.2017. The
petitioner was also informed that her pay would be revised with effect from
01.06.2017, purportedly in accordance with the proceedings issued by the 2nd
respondent dated 09.06.2022 in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.01999/E2/2021.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
that the first incentive increment was granted to the petitioner on the basis of her
M.Phil. qualification in Physical Education and Sports Science, whereas the
second incentive increment was granted on the basis of the subsequently
acquired P.G. Diploma in Yoga, which was pursued with prior permission from
the Department. The learned counsel would submit that the said qualification
formed the basis for sanction of the second incentive increment and revision of
her pay in the year 2017. It is therefore contended that the subsequent
cancellation of the second incentive increment on the ground that the petitioner
had not acquired one of the other qualifications referred to by the respondents as
__________
Page4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
a prerequisite under G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 13.10.2016 is contrary to the scheme
contemplated under the said Government Order, and the consequential recovery
is unsustainable, particularly when the benefit had been granted by the
competent authority and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before its
withdrawal.
7. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in S. Arockiasamy v. State of
Tamil Nadu and others, W.A.(MD) No.131 of 2014, dated 18.12.2014,
“8. It has been claimed that the appellant has studied M.Phil in Physical
Education. The only objection raised by the Government is that the appellant
has not obtained the Master's Degree in the specialised subject. But the
certificate issued by the Alagappa University, Karaikudi, which is produced
before this Court, would go to show that Mr.Arockiyasamy, the appellant
herein is conferred with degree in Master of Philosophy in Physical Education,
which is the basic requirement of fulfilment of the condition No. iii (supra) for
grant of incentive increment to the Physical Education Teacher.
9. In view of the above, the view taken by the writ Court in dismissing the writ
petition is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed
and the order of the Writ Court is set aside. The respondents are directed to
provide incentive increment to the appellant within a perio
d of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
8. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and
others v. P. Muneeswari, W.A.(MD) No.2084 of 2024, dated 22.10.2024 , held
that G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 13.10.2016 did not create the entitlement to the first
incentive increment for Physical Education Teachers. It dealt with/recognised
the entitlement to the second incentive increment. Therefore, where a PET had
already been granted the first incentive increment on the basis of the
__________
Page5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
qualification possessed at the time of appointment, that entitlement could not be
retrospectively treated as having arisen only from G.O.Ms.No.177. The relevant
paragraphs are as follows:
“4. The respondent was sanctioned with incentive increment even at the time
of her appointment since she had M.P.Ed qualification. Thereafter there was a
consistent demand by the Physical Education Teachers for the second
incentive increment to be granted. This was considered and a direction was
issued by the Principal Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15069 of 2016 dated
25.04.2016 to consider the representation of Physical Education Teachers. It
is resulted in the Government passing G.O.Ms.No.177 where the right of the
Physical Education Teachers for a second incentive increment was
recognized. While doing so, the Government tabulated the higher qualification
in respect of Middle School Teachers or Physical Education Teachers working
in the Middle Schools. The qualification was prescribed as Government
Teachers certificate for B.P.Ed lower grade or higher grade. The higher
qualification was prescribed as B.T or B.Ed and for the second incentive
increment qualification M.P.Ed, M.Phil or P.G Diploma in Yoga in respect of
Physical Education Teachers. For secondary grade rank, the qualification
prescribed was B.P.Ed or BPES or BMS. The higher qualification for the first
incentive increment was M.P.Ed or M.Phil or PG diploma in Yoga. For the
second incentive increment for higher grade was M.Phil or Ph.D. If the basic
qualification prescribed as M.P.Ed, the higher qualification prescribed was
M.Phil or Ph.D. Similar qualifications are also prescribed by the
Director/Directress of Physical Education as Graduate Teachers etc.
5. This Government Order is sought to be taken advantage by the Government
to contend that incentive increment for M.Phil qualification for Physical
Education Teachers was recognised for the first time only under this
Government Order. Observation of the learned Single Judge in W.P.
(MD)No.4973 of 2019 is also to the same effect. With due respect, we are
unable to agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. When the
Government introduced G.O.Ms.No.324 in the year 1995, which clearly states
that Physical Education Teachers would be entitled to the incentive increment
for higher qualification in Physical Education which included M.Phil or Ph.D
also. While granting second incentive increment while prescribing the
eligibility for the second incentive increment the Government has clarified that
these qualifications would make teachers eligible for second incentive
increment, ie., clarified by the clause 3 of the Government Order which we
have already extracted. Therefore, the view of the Hon'ble Justice
G.R.Swaminathan that the entitlement for Physical Education Teachers on the
basis of acquiring M.P.Ed qualification would commence only after issuance
of G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 13.10.2016 is not correct. Moreover, the learned
Judge need not have gone into the question at all in the said judgment. Hence,
the said judgment related to a person claiming second incentive increment and
not the first incentive increment. This is clear from the judgment of the
Division Bench in Rajmohan v. The State of Tamilnadu, Chennai and others in
W.A(MD).No.119 of 2023, where the Division Bench has taken note of the fact
__________
Page6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
that the appellant therein was given second incentive increment in the year
1998 for M.Phil which was not then available to the Physical Education
Teacher and hence, the orders of recovery were not sustained. The Division
Bench judgment, in our opinion, will not apply to the facts of the case on hand
since the petitioner herein is not claiming second incentive increment. We,
therefore, conclude that there is no need to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge. This Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.”
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents would submit that the incentive increment granted to the petitioner
was subsequently found to be contrary to the conditions governing the special
scheme. According to the respondents, the audit objection specifically pointed
out that, under G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 13.10.2016, a PET was required to
possess one of the prescribed basic/higher qualifications, such as B.T., B.Ed.,
B.P.Ed., BPES or B.M.S., and only thereafter, on acquiring a P.G. Diploma in
Yoga after obtaining prior permission, would the employee become eligible for
the second incentive increment.
10. It is the further contention that the petitioner had not undergone any of
the qualifications allegedly prescribed under the said Government Order and
had directly acquired the P.G. Diploma in Yoga. Therefore, according to the
respondents, the qualification acquired by the petitioner could not be treated as
a valid qualification for the purpose of granting the second incentive increment.

__________
Page7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
11. The respondent would submit that the audit objection was thereafter
communicated to the concerned authorities and appropriate directions were
issued for rectification of the erroneous fixation and recovery of the excess
amount paid to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned proceedings dated
15.05.2023 were issued cancelling the second incentive increment and ordering
recovery of the excess payment.
12. The learned counsel would further rely upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih and
High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267 ,
particularly paragraph 11, to contend that where an employee had received
monetary benefits contrary to the applicable rules or conditions, the excess
amount could be recovered, particularly where the employee had furnished an
undertaking in relation to such payment.
13. It is therefore contended that the incentive increment granted to the
petitioner was contrary to the conditions prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.177 dated
13.10.2016 and that the respondents were justified in rectifying the erroneous
grant and recovering the excess amount paid. The learned Additional
Government Pleader accordingly sought dismissal of the writ petition and also
sought vacation of the interim order granted in W.M.P.(MD) No.12450 of 2023
in W.P.(MD) No.14767 of 2023 dated 21.06.2023.
__________
Page8 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
14. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of this Court in Josephine
Gnanasoundari. I v. The State , W.P (MD) No. 13541 of 2022 dated
18.12.2024 held as follows:
“5. The incentive increments were provided to the Physical Education
Teachers by the Government from the year 1969 for the purpose of
rewarding them. Certain guidelines have also been issued by the
Government on the eligibility of the incentive increments for those who have
acquired higher qualification. It is clarified that as per G.O.Ms.No.177,
School Education Department, dated, 13.10.2016, the Physical Education
Teachers, who possess the qualification of B.P.Ed., BPES or BMS are
entitled for first incentive increment and those who are having the higher
qualification of M.P.Ed., MPES or P.G.Diploma in Yoga are entitled for
second incentive increment. Admittedly, this petitioner was appointed with a
basic qualification of a Certificate in Physical Education and she did not
complete any under graduate course meant for Physical Education.
However, she has completed PG Diploma in Yoga. Therefore, she is not
entitled for any incentive increment. The aforesaid Government Order does
not permit for grant of an incentive increment in such cases. However, it has
been wrongly fixed and later it has been corrected, after audit objection.
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner
claims that some Physical Education Teachers, who possess PG Diploma in
Yoga are provided with incentive increments, however, this petitioner has
been denied, though she has acquired the additional qualification of PG
Diploma in Yoga. Therefore, he seeks liberty to challenge the Government
Order in G.O.Ms.No.177, School Education. Department, dated,
13.10.2016. This writ petition is dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner
to challenge the aforesaid Government Order, if she is so advised. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
15. Thus, the principal question that arises for consideration is as to
whether the petitioner, having already been granted the first incentive increment
on the basis of his M.Phil. qualification in Physical Education and having
subsequently acquired a P.G. Diploma in Yoga, was entitled to the second
incentive increment under G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 13.10.2016.
__________
Page9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
16. The issue would necessarily have to be examined with reference to the
precise language of G.O.Ms.No.177 dated 13.10.2016, particularly Clause 1(c),
and the manner in which the qualifications prescribed therein are to be
understood. The question is also whether the qualifications referred to by the
respondents constitute an independent eligibility requirement for the second
incentive increment or whether the P.G. Diploma in Yoga itself is recognised as
one of the qualifications for which the second incentive increment could be
granted.
17. It is to be noted that, in the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.22/2023/A1
dated 15.05.2023, the respondents have stated that, as per Clause 1(c) of G.O.
(Ms.) No.177 dated 13.10.2016, an incentive increment is admissible for only
one educational qualification in respect of a Physical Education Teacher
(Intermediate Teacher Post), based on the M.P.Ed. qualification. However, Mr.
P. Chandrasekaran, who was appointed to the Secondary Grade Teacher post
based on his M.P.Ed. qualification, had been granted incentive increments for
two educational qualifications. The impugned order further states that the
Principal Educational Officer, vide the proceedings referred to therein, had
pointed out that the grant of two incentive increments to an individual, contrary
to the Government Order referred to above, would be subject to audit
objections. It was, therefore, directed that the incentive increment granted
__________
Page10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
contrary to the rules be cancelled and the excess amount sanctioned be remitted
to the Government account. Accordingly, the incentive increment granted to the
petitioner for the P.G. Diploma in Yoga qualification was cancelled with effect
from 01.06.2017. The petitioner was further directed to remit, in one instalment,
the amount received towards the said incentive increment from 01.06.2017 till
the date of the impugned order into the Government account.
18. The dispute in the present case, therefore, pertains to the cancellation
of the incentive increment granted to the petitioner for the P.G. Diploma in
Yoga qualification and the consequential direction to recover the amount paid in
that regard. The issue is not with respect to the petitioner's basic educational
qualification or the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment, as sought to be
contended by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Accordingly, confining
the consideration to the issue arising from the impugned order, this Court has
perused the judgments relied upon by both parties and proceeds to consider the
matter as follows.
19. It is pertinent to refer to G.O.Ms.No 324 of Education. Science and
Technology Department, dated 25.04.1995, deals with the subject of grant of
incentive increments to Teachers for acquiring higher qualifications for certain
specified subjects, reads as follows:
__________
Page11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
“4. The Government have examined the matter carefully and decided to
stipulate the Higher Secondary Syllabus subjects as 'relevant subjects for
the purpose of sanctioning incentive increments in respect of Physical
Education Teachers incentive increments will continue to be only for
higher qualification in the area of Physical Education .”
5. The Government accordingly direct that
i) The conditions (i) to (iii) in para 3 of G.O. Ms. No. 624,
Education. dated 13-7-92 be deleted.
ii) For the sanction of incentive increments the subjects in the
Higher Secondary Syllabus shall be the relevant subjects.
iii) In respect of the teachers in Physical Education they are
eligible for the incentive for higher qualification only in Physical
Education
iv) These orders will take retrospective effect from 17-9-86 to
cover past cases.
v) The teachers who have acquired higher qualification in subjects
other than higher Secondary Syllabus shall not be eligible for any
incentive increment.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
In this regard, it is also necessary to examine G.O.Ms.No.177, dated
13.10.2016, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
G.O. Ms.
No.
177/School
Education
[Paka. 5(2)]
Department
Dated
13.10.2016
Physical
Education
Teachers,
Physical
Education
Directors
Grade I and
II –
increments
1. (a) Physical Education Teacher
(Secondary Grade Teacher Pay Scale)
Basic qualification being Government
Teachers Certificate in Physical Education
Lower Grade or Higher Grade.
(i) B.T. Or B.Ed., Degree (Before issue of
G.O.No. 624/13.07.1992.
(or)
B.P.Ed., (or) B.P.E.S., B.M.S., any one or
these.
(ii) M.P. Ed., (or) M.P.E.S., (or) P.G.
Diploma in Yoga by Recognized university
or equivalent - 2nd incentive increment.
1. (b) Physical Education Teacher
(Secondary Grade Teacher Pay Scale)
Basic qualification being B.P.Ed., (or)
B.P.E.S., B.M.S.,
(i) M.P. Ed., (or) M.P. E.S., (or) P.G.
Diploma in Yoga by equivalent - 1st
incentive increment.
(ii) M. Phil., (or) Ph.D. Degree - 2nd
Incentive Increment)
1. (c) Physical Education Teacher
(Secondary Grade Teacher Pay Scale)
Basic qualification being M.P.Ed.,
(i) M.Phil., (or) Ph.D. Degree in Physical
Education (or) P.G. Diploma in Yoga –
Incentive increments for each Degree for
any 2 Degree ( maximum 2 incentive
__________
Page12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
Higher
Qualificatio
n Orders
issued.
[G.O. Issued
following
the Orders
of the
Hon’ble
High Court
Madras, in
W.P. No.
15069 of
2016]
increments)
2. (a) Physical Education Director Grade II
(B.T. Assistant Teacher Pay Scale)
Basic qualification being B.P.ed., (or)
B.P.E.S., B.M.S.
(i) M.P.Ed., (or) M.P.E.S., (or) P.G Diploma
in Yoga by equivalent - 1st incentive
increment
(ii) M.Phil., (or) Ph.D. Degree - 2nd
Incentive Increment)
2(b) Physical Education Director Grade II
(B.T. Assistant Teacher Pay Scale)
Basic qualification being M.P. Ed., (or)
M.P.E.S.,
(i) M. Phil., (or) Ph.D. Degree in physical
Education (or) P.G. Diploma in Yoga or
equivalent – for any 2 degrees – 2 incentive
increments (maximum 2 incentive
increments.)
3. Physical Education Director Grade I
(P.G. Teacher Pay Scale)
Basic qualification being M.P.Ed., (or)
M.P.E.S.,
(i) M.Phil., (or) Ph.D. Degree in Physical
Education (or) P.G. Diploma in Yoga or
equivalent – for Any 2 Degrees -2 Incentive
Increments (Maximum 2 incentive
increments)
Other conditions specified in the G.O. No.
177, dated 13.10.2016 are:
(i) There shall be maximum 2 incentive
increments for whole service.
(ii) The Second incentive eligible as per G.O.
Shall be sanctioned with effect from the date
of issues of G.O., i.e., with effect from
13.10.2016.
(iii) For all those Physical Education
Teachers mentioned as above the incentive
increments shall be sanctioned for those
higher educational qualifications acquired
over and above the basic educational
qualification specified in the G.O. No.
177/13.10.2016.
(Emphasis Supplied)
1
The relevant portion of Clause 1(c) of the aforesaid Government Order, in the
original Tamil, is extracted hereunder:

வ . எண் வகை அடிப்படைக்
கல்வித் தகுதி

ஊக்க ஊதிய உயர்வுக்கான உயர்கல்வித்
தகுதி
உடற்கல்வி ஆசிரியர்
1(c)
( இடைநிலை ஆசிரியர்
பணிநிலை )
M.P.Ed. M.Phil (or) Ph.D. in Physical Education
( அ ) P.G. Diploma in Yoga by recognised

university ( அ ) அதற்கு இணை யான
1
P. Ramraj v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, W.P. (MD). No. 354 of 2018.
__________
Page13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
இரண்டு கல்வித் தகுதிகளுக்கு தலா ஒரு

ஊக்க ஊதிய உயர்வு
20. Now, the issue centres on the interpretation of the aforesaid clause. It is
pertinent to note that G.O.Ms.No.177, dated 13.10.2016, primarily deals with
the grant of the second incentive increment to Physical Education Teachers and
does not govern the grant of the first incentive increment. This distinction was
recognised by the Division Bench in The State of Tamil Nadu v. P.
Muneeswari , referred to supra . Therefore, the petitioner's entitlement to the
first incentive increment for M.Phil. in Physical Education and the subsequent
grant of the second incentive increment for the P.G. Diploma in Yoga have to
be examined in the light of the respective Government Orders.
21. As far as the acquisition of an M.Phil. degree in Physical Education is
concerned, the issue is no longer res integra, in view of the decisions of this
Court in C. Rajendra v. The Regional Accounts Officer and Others , W.P.
(MD) No.1771 of 2021 , dated 10.01.2024, and S. Santhakumar v. The Chief
Educational Officer , W.P. No.1946 of 2023 , dated 08.08.2024. In the said
decisions, this Court held that, where the petitioner had acquired an M.Phil.
degree in Physical Education, there could be no doubt as to his entitlement to an
incentive increment for the said qualification under G.O.Ms.No.324, dated
25.04.1995.
__________
Page14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
22. On a plain reading of the aforesaid clause, it is evident that a Physical
Education Teacher whose basic educational qualification is M.P.Ed. is eligible
for incentive increments for the acquisition of M.Phil. or Ph.D. in Physical
Education or a P.G. Diploma in Yoga from a recognised university, with one
incentive increment for each of any two qualifying higher educational
qualifications, subject to a maximum of two incentive increments.
23. In the present case, the petitioner’s entitlement to the second incentive
increment for the P.G. Diploma in Yoga can be examined from two
perspectives. Firstly, G.O.Ms.No.177, dated 13.10.2016, primarily deals with
the grant of the second incentive increment to Physical Education Teachers. The
petitioner had already been sanctioned the first incentive increment for
acquiring an M.Phil. degree in Physical Education under G.O.Ms.No.324, dated
25.04.1995, prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.177. Therefore, the subsequent
Government Order ought not to be construed as displacing or nullifying the
petitioner’s pre-existing entitlement to the first incentive increment.
24. Secondly, even if both the M.Phil. degree in Physical Education and the
P.G. Diploma in Yoga is considered together for the purpose of determining the
petitioner’s entitlement under G.O.Ms.No.177, the clause expressly
contemplates the grant of incentive increments for any two qualifying higher
__________
Page15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
educational qualifications, subject to an overall ceiling of two incentive
increments. Thus, the petitioner’s claim for one incentive increment for each of
the two qualifications would fall within the prescribed ceiling. Accordingly, the
mere fact that the petitioner had already been granted an incentive increment for
M.Phil. in Physical Education cannot, by itself, justify denying the second
incentive increment for the P.G. Diploma in Yoga, provided the petitioner
otherwise satisfies the applicable eligibility conditions.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the very purpose and intent
underlying Clause 1(c) of G.O.Ms.No.177, dated 13.10.2016, is to provide for
the grant of incentive increments for any two qualifying higher educational
qualifications, subject to a maximum of two incentive increments. The language
employed in the said clause does not warrant an interpretation that would
disentitle a Physical Education Teacher from claiming the second incentive
increment merely because the first incentive increment had already been granted
for another qualifying higher educational qualification. In the present case, the
petitioner had been granted the first incentive increment for acquiring an
M.Phil. degree in Physical Education and subsequently acquired a P.G. Diploma
in Yoga from a recognised university. The petitioner had, therefore, acquired
two distinct higher educational qualifications falling within the ambit of the
aforesaid Government Order.
__________
Page16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
26. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the second
incentive increment for the P.G. Diploma in Yoga. Accordingly, the impugned
proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 15.05.2023 in Na.Ka.No.22/2023/A1,
issued pursuant to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 09.06.2022 in
Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.01999/E2/2021, are set aside. Consequently, the respondents
are directed to restore the second incentive increment granted to the petitioner
and revise his pay in accordance with the proceedings of the 4th respondent in
A.A.A.303/Nithi/Oo.Ku. dated 11.10.2017, with all consequential benefits,
including the arrears payable to the petitioner.
27. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
28. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MSRM
__________
Page17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
To
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of School Education, Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Officer of the Chief Educational Officer,
Tiruchirapalli
3. The Madurai Regional Account Officer (Audit)
School Education Department, Madurai 2
4. The Principal
Government Boys Higher Secondary School,
Thathiengarpet, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirapalli
621 214.
5. The Assistant Treasury Officer
Sub Treasury, Musiri, Tiruchirapalli
__________
Page18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )

WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
MSRM
WP(MD) No. 14767 of 2023
16-10-2026
__________
Page19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:56:48 pm )