IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 29-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4361 of 2007 (O.A.No.535 of 2001) M. Elangeeran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government School Education Department Secretariate, Chennai – 9. 2.Director of School Education, Chennai – 9. 3.District Educational Officer, Pollachi,Coimbatore District .. Respondents Prayer: Original Application No.535 of 2001 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition No.4361 of 2007, seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in his Proceedings Na.Ka.3561/A4/2000 dt.26.9.2000 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to sanction one set of incentive increment. For Petitioner : Mr.P. Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner had joined in Service, as a Grade II Tamil Pandit, on 1.4.1968 and he was promoted as a Grade I Tamil Pandit, on 25.2.1971. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a P.G. Assistant, on 15.11.1996 and further promoted as a Headmaster of High School, on 9.2.2000. The petitioner had retired from service, on 31.5.2001. While so, he had acquired two sets of incentive increments. When he had applied for the sanction of incentive increment for M.Ed. qualification it was rejected by the impugned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order, dated 26.9.2000, on the ground that a Teacher is eligible for only for two sets of incentive increments and therefore, the incentive increment for M.Ed. cannot be sanctioned. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that, as per paragraph 3(ii) (a) of G.O. Ms. No.1024 Education Science & Technology Department dated 9.12.93, the maximum number of advance increments, which a teacher can get, under the scheme of incentive increments in accordance with the Government order shall be four, in his entire service. Accordingly, the petitioner is eligible for two more increments when he was in service. However, since the petitioner had retired from service, in the year 2002, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner would be eligible for one more increment for M.Ed. qualification. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 26.9.2000, is set aside, and the third respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with G.O. Ms. No.1024, Education Science & Technology Department,dated 9.12.93, considering the request of the petitioner to sanction one set of incentive increments to the petitioner for his M.Ed. qualification. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub.Asst Registrar ses To 1.The Secretary to Government School Education Department Secretariate, Chennai – 9 2. Director of School Education, Chennai – 9. 3.District Educational Officer, Pollachi, Coimbatore District + 1 cc to Mr.S.Mani,Advocate,SR.33202 + 1 cc to Government Pleader,High Court, Madras.SR.33313 Writ Petition No.4361 of 2007 (O.A.No.535 of 2001) KK(CO) EM/10.8.09 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/