Tamil Nadu HC Orders Second Incentive And Arrears For Teacher’s Vinayaka Mission Distance-Education MPhil

The petitioner, a B.T. Assistant in a Government High School, challenged an audit objection dated 19.09.2018 concerning the second incentive increment granted for his M.Phil. degree obtained through distance education from Vinayaka Mission’s University.

The audit objection led to recovery proceedings against the incentive granted on 18.01.2013.

The petitioner relied on a Division Bench ruling concerning teachers who studied at the University during 2007–2009; the State also accepted that the issue was covered by that ruling, which the Supreme Court had subsequently confirmed.

1. Whether the audit objection and consequent action against the petitioner’s second incentive increment were sustainable in light of the Division Bench ruling concerning Vinayaka Mission’s University distance-education degrees.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration and payment of the second incentive, including arrears.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may set aside an administrative order that is inconsistent with binding judicial precedent.

The Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 2328 of 2018 and batch held that an audit objection to incentive increments could not be sustained for teachers who obtained qualifications from Vinayaka Mission’s University during 2007–2009, when the University had the requisite approval or recognition from the DEC/IGNOU; incentives already cancelled or stopped were to be restored, with arrears paid.

The judgment records that this ruling was subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court.

The Court treated the Division Bench ruling as controlling and noted that the State accepted that the issue was no longer res integra.

Applying that ruling, it found sufficient justification to interfere with the 19.09.2018 order and directed payment of the second incentive and arrears.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed; there was no order as to costs.