P PAULRAJ Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ on hand, is filed for a direction to direct the 3rd respondent to receive the application of the petitioner for sanction of one incentive increment to the petitioner for M.Phil., qualification and forward the same to the 2nd Respondent, and direct the Respondents to sanction incentive increment for M.Phil., qualification by considering the representation dated 16.04.2012 made by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts in nutshell in respect of the present writ petition on hand is that the writ petitioner acquired B.Sc., in 1968 and B.Ed., in April 1970. He joined as B.T.Assistant(Science) in Panathope Railway Colony Aided High School, Ayyanavaram, Chennai - 23 on 01.07.1970 and he was appointed through Employment Exchange concerned. The petitioner acquired M.A., on 12.05.1977, for which one incentive increment was sanctioned on 12.12.1977. Thereafter, he was appointed as Headmaster of High School in the 3rd respondent School on 14.10.1978. He was further promoted as Headmaster of Higher Secondary School and posted at M.G.R.Higher Secondary School, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 24 on 02.07.1980. At this point of time, the petitioner acquired M.Ed., in 1981 for which another incentive increment was sanctioned to him. While he was working as Headmaster of Higher Secondary School, he acquired M.Phil., in August 1993 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2000. The petitioner served by way of an extension of service till the end of the academic year up to 31.05.2001 as Headmaster of Higher Secondary School and retired.

(3.) In the present case, the writ petitioner acquired the M.Phil., qualification for which he seeks another one set of incentive increment in August 1993. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2000. However, the writ petition is filed on 16th July 2013 after a lapse of thirteen years from the date of his retirement. Thus, the writ petition itself is liable to be rejected on the ground of laches. It is unfortunate that a Teacher, who acquired several additional qualifications, while he was in service and already sanctioned with two sets of incentive increment, while he was in service, filed a writ petition after a lapse of thirteen years from the date of retirement and seeking additional incentive increment for the purpose of the acquisition of M.Phil., qualification in the year 1993. The claim is certainly unreasonable and unjust. The very concept of grant of incentive increment would be defeated in the event of granting such relief now after a lapse of many years from the date of retirement. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be rejected at the outset.