Facts
The petitioner, a Middle School BT Headmaster, was granted incentive increments for acquiring a B.Ed. qualification in 2014, with effect from 14 December 2013.
Source reference: p.1–3In 2020, the respondents issued proceedings seeking recovery of those increments, relying on proceedings issued by the Director of Elementary Education in 2016.
Source reference: p.1–3The petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings under Article 226, relying on a Full Bench decision concerning incentive increments under G.O.Ms.No.42 and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.37.
Source reference: p.1–3The respondents argued that B.Ed. was a prerequisite for promotion to Headmaster and that the petitioner should seek consideration under G.O.Ms.No.95.
Source reference: p.4–5Issues
1. Whether the respondents could recover incentive increments granted to the petitioner in 2014, with effect from 14 December 2013, on the basis of subsequent government orders.
Source reference: p.2–3, 52. Whether the petitioner was required to make a fresh application under G.O.Ms.No.95 because of G.O.Ms.No.37.
Source reference: p.4–5Law Applied
G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10 January 1969, governed the grant of incentive increments for additional qualifications.
Source reference: p.3, 5G.O.Ms.No.37, Personal and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10 March 2020, cancelled the earlier arrangement; under the Full Bench ruling dated 11 June 2026, applications pending on the date of G.O.Ms.No.37 were not eligible for grant under G.O.Ms.No.42 and were to be dealt with under G.O.Ms.No.95, Human Resources Management (FR-IV) Department, dated 26 October 2023.
Source reference: p.3, 5The Full Bench further held that incentive increments granted before G.O.M
Original Court PDF
P.Sathiyanarayanan,vsThe Director of Elementary Education,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
