R. Santhanakrishnan vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M.M. Sundresh, J.

The petitioner herein joined the services as a Post Graduate Assistant on 9.3.1979. He was promoted to the post of Headmaster of a Higher Secondary School on 14.11.1994. In the said post, he retired on 31.5.2006 after reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner was granted two advance increments for possessing the higher qualification of M.Ed degree while working in the post of Post Graduate Assistant as per G.O.Ms.No. 747, dated 19.06.1986. The Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No. 283 School Education Department dated 28.11.2007 granting incentive increment to the Headmasters who were working in the said capacity on the date of passing of order. Now the petitioner has come forward to file the writ petition stating that inasmuch as he possessed the requisite qualifications as per the above said Government Order he should be extended the said benefits, though he retired much prior to the issuance of the said Government Order dated 28.11.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that the application of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 283 School Education Department dated 28.11.2007 prospectively is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been made on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 1333 of 2000 dated 9.3.2004, W.P.No. 5648 of 2008 dated 1.12.2008 and W.P.(MD) No. 960 of 2011 dated 16.04.2012.

Admittedly, the petitioner has retired much prior to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 283 School Education Department dated 28.11.2007. The said Government Order has not been challenged by the petitioner. When said decision has been made by the respondent as a policy decision, this Court cannot force them to extend the benefit of the said Government Order to those Headmasters, who acquired the qualification much prior to the said order. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not have application to the case on hand as they involve fixation of pay. We are concerned with the payment of increments, which the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right. This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. The Government Order passed is specific. It clearly states that the said G.O. is applicable prospectively.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.