A.MARIAPPAN, BT ASST, vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 02.09.2026
Delivered On : 10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
A.Mariappan,
BT Assistant,
C.M.M.L.High School,
Vadamalapuram P.O-627 755,
Mullikulam Via, Kadayanallur Tk,
Tirunelveli Dist.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government Of Tamilnadu
Rep. By Its Secretary To Government, (school
Education And Elementary Education
Department) Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli Dist.
3. The District Educational
Officer, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli Dist.
4. The Manager,
C.M.M.L. High School,
Vadamalapuram P.O-627 755,
Mullikulam Via, Kadayanallur Tk,
Tirunelveli Dist. ..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to G.O.Ms.No.83 School Education (Elementary
Education 1 (2)) Department dated 28.4.2017 of the 1st respondent herein
in so far as the clause giving incentive increments to the SC and ST
Graduate Teachers alone who were appointed between 1997 to 2000 and
__________
Page  1  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
the clause not giving monetary benefits from the date of appointment or
date of passing additional degree alone and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to award incentive
increments to the petitioner for his M.A degree with effect from May
2006 respectively with all attendant benefits and privileges based on the
judgment reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 1349.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.T. Pon Ramkumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the
G.O.Ms.No. 83, School Education (Elementary Education 1) Department
dated 28.04.2017 of the 1st Respondent, insofar as it confines incentive
increments for additional qualification to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe Graduate Teachers appointed between 1997 and 2000, and insofar
as it withholds monetary benefit from the date of appointment or date of
acquiring higher qualification, and to quash the same and to consequently
direct the respondents 1 and 2 to award incentive increment to the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner, possessing a B.A. degree (1988) and a B.Ed.
degree (1989), and belonging to the Backward Class community, was
appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent's school
__________
Page  2  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
on 04.01.1996, in the absence of eligible diploma-holding candidates, on
condition that he would not claim the salary or incentive increment
applicable to a Graduate Teacher. The 2nd respondent approved this
appointment from the date thereof.
3. Similar appointments of Graduate Teachers as Secondary Grade
Teachers, made under G.O.Ms.No.559, were challenged before the
Principal Bench of this Court and an Hon'ble Division Bench in
Secretary Correspondent Uswathun Hasana Oriental (Arabic) Girls
Higher Secondary School v. State of Tamil Nadu , 2002 Writ LR 173 ,
directed the Government to approve appointments made between
11.07.1995 and 19.05.1998, leaving it open to prescribe the requisite
training in order to approve the appointment. Pursuant to the order,
G.O.Ms.No.155, Education Department, dated 03.10.2002, required such
teachers to undergo one month training, on completion of which alone
they would be eligible for salary. The petitioner accordingly underwent
child psychology training from 02.05.2003 to 31.05.2003, following
which the 1st respondent, by proceedings dated 15.10.2004, approved his
appointment with effect from 02.06.2003, refixing his salary on the same
condition.
__________
Page  3  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
4. Separately, G.O.Ms.No.113, School Education (S1) Department,
dated 14.3.1997, and G.O.Ms.No.301, School Education (B1)
Department, dated 15.10.1999, designated certain Secondary Grade
Teacher vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
candidates during the period 1997-2000 as backlog vacancies, i.e., 1,340
and 1,152 posts respectively to be filled, for want of eligible Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, by Graduate Teachers of the same
community drawn from the employment exchange list, subject to an
undertaking that they would draw only the Secondary Grade scale of pay,
claim no incentive increment for their higher qualification, and seek no
promotion or direct appointment as BT Assistant, in addition to
undergoing the one month's training referred to above.
5. The petitioner, having obtained permission from the 4th
respondent, obtained his M.A. (History) degree in 2006 and applied for
incentive increment in 2007 on that basis. The respondents, after several
representations by the petitioner, orally deferred the claim as pending
before the Government. In 2012, the respondents called for particulars of
similarly placed graduate teachers and the expenditure involved, without
giving any further orders. The petitioner was promoted as BT Assistant in
the 4th respondent's school on 31.3.2017.
__________
Page  4  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
6. The 1st respondent thereafter issued the impugned
G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 28.4.2017, relaxing the condition referred to in
paragraph 4 above and permitting incentive increment for post-graduate
qualifications such as M.A., M.Sc. and M.Ed. to be reckoned notionally
from the date of appointment or of acquiring the qualification, with
monetary benefit from the date of the G.O., in favour of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe Graduate Teachers appointed against the aforesaid
backlog vacancies who continued to serve as Secondary Grade Teachers
and for those who had since retired without promotion, the benefit was to
be notional alone. When the petitioner made a representation for
extension of this benefit, the 3rd respondent declined, on the ground that
G.O.Ms.No.83 was confined to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
teachers appointed against the 1997–2000 backlog vacancies.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned G.O. is arbitrary
and unsustainable insofar as it confines incentive increment to Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe Graduate Teachers appointed within a
specified time period, and withholds monetary benefit from the date of
appointment or acquisition of the higher qualification. It is also his case
that he, having been appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher with
graduate qualifications on terms materially identical to those governing
__________
Page  5  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe appointees, and having at no
point claimed increment for his base qualification, is equally entitled to
incentive increment for his M.A. degree.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that once the Government has
resolved to grant such an incentive, it cannot restrict the benefit to
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates alone, or to a specified
period, without extending it to similarly placed Graduate Teachers. It is
the further case of petitioner that the 3rd respondent has, without
assigning reasons, granted the benefit to Graduate Teachers appointed as
Secondary Grade Teachers in the neighbouring districts of Virudhunagar,
Madurai, Kanyakumari, Tuticorin and Tirunelveli, while denying it to the
petitioner alone. He further contends that the object of incentive
increments, namely to keep employees motivated through the fag end of
their service, would stand defeated if the benefit is denied to him despite
equal service.
9. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of 1st
and 2nd respondents as well. It is the case of the Respondents that
G.O.Ms.No.83 relaxed the no-incentive condition exclusively for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Graduate Teachers appointed
__________
Page  6  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
against the specific backlog vacancies referred to in paragraph 4 above,
and only for such of them who had continued to serve as Secondary
Grade Teachers as on the date of the G.O. The learned counsel for the
respondent would contend that the petitioner, neither being a Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe appointee against those backlog vacancies nor
being a Secondary Grade Teacher, having already been promoted as BT
Assistant on 31.3.2017, falls outside the scope of the G.O. He would
further contend that the Director of School Education had observed that
the concept of backlog vacancies did not extend to aided schools, and had
called for particulars by letter dated 28.5.2018 for issuing a separate G.O.
for aided-school teachers, but no such G.O. or clarification has since been
issued, rendering any sanction of incentive increment by the school
management in the interim premature. He would further contend that by
order dated 19.01.2021, the third respondent accordingly informed the
petitioner that his claim would be considered only on receipt of specific
orders from the Director of School Education.
10. By proceedings dated 28.08.2018, the second respondent
sanctioned incentive increment to the petitioner for his M.A. (History)
degree with effect from 01.04.2017. What remains in controversy is the
incentive increment for the period from the date on which the petitioner
acquired the degree in 2006 until 31.03.2017.
__________
Page  7  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
11. It is on the above factual matrix, this writ petition falls to be
examined.
12. The respondents have taken a stand that G.O.Ms.No.83 relaxed
the no-incentive condition only for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
Graduate Teachers appointed against the backlog vacancies between
1997 and 2000, who continued as Secondary Grade Teachers on the date
of the Government Order. The petitioner, it is said, is neither such an
appointee nor a Secondary Grade Teacher, having been promoted as BT
Assistant on 31.03.2017. The question is whether the petitioner can be
denied incentive increment for his M.A. (History) degree on these
grounds.
13. Before turning to the facts of the instant case, it is necessary to
trace the scheme of incentive increment, for the petitioner’s claim rests
on the scheme and not on G.O.Ms.No. 83.
14. The scheme was first introduced by G.O.Ms.No. 42, Education
Department, dated 10.01.1969. By that Government Order, the
Government contemplated granting some kind of incentive payments to
__________
Page  8  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
teachers in schools who acquire higher educational qualifications. The
relevant portion of the Annexure to that G.O, is extracted hereunder:
"2. A Secondary Grade Teacher who after passing B.T.
or B.Ed., degree examination qualifies for M.A., or
M.Sc., or M.Ed., degree but working in Secondary Grade
Post may be given advance increments for second time
also i.e. Two advance increments after passing B.T. or
B.Ed., degree and another two after passing M.A. or
M.Ed., degree. B.T. Teachers who after passing M.A. or
M.Sc., qualifies for M.Ed., degree examination but
working in B.T. or Headmaster's post may be given
advance increments after passing M.Ed., degree."
15. The same position was followed in G.O.Ms.No. 1170,
Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 20.12.1993,
wherein it was stated that under G.O. 42, “the Secondary Grade Teachers
are eligible for two incentive increments, i) for B.T., or B.Ed., and ii)
another for M.A., or M.Sc., or M.Ed.”.
16. Thereafter, by G.O.Ms.No.1024, Education, Science and
Technology Department, dated 09.12.1993, the Government substituted
paragraph (ii) of the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.42 and fixed a ceiling on
the number of advance increments that can be awarded and the same is
extracted hereunder:
__________
Page  9  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
"(ii) A Secondary Grade Teacher who has passed B.T. Or
B.Ed., degree examination and obtained two advance increments
shall be eligible for another two advance increments for passing
M.A., M.Sc or M.Ed., Degree while working either in the
Secondary Grade post or in B.T/B.Ed., Assistant Post. A
B.T.Teacher who after passing M.A., or M.Sc., and obtained two
advance increments shall be eligible for another two advance
increments is qualified M.Ed., Degree while working in
B.T.Assistant Post or Headmaster post.
(ii) a) The maximum no. of advance increments which
a Teacher can get under the scheme of incentive increments
under this Government Order shall be four in his entire
service."
17. A Secondary Grade Teacher who acquires an M.A. degree is
thus within the general scheme. As to the object of the scheme and the
manner in which it must be applied, the Hon’ble Division Bench in
Premakumari (supra) held:
“8. We do not think the aforesaid observation of the
learned single Judge can stand the scrutiny of logic or even
reality. The obvious intention in granting an incentive
increment is for attracting higher qualified people or for
encouraging the existing employees to acquire higher
qualification, even though in service, so that the quality of
service would improve. This is obviously on the assumption
that a higher qualified person could work more efficiently.
__________
Page  10  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
Therefore, it defies logic as to why a person who had
already qualified would not get an incentive increment, if
such an incentive increment is given to a lower qualified
person in service, who acquires subsequently such higher
qualification. Such a differential treatment would not stand
the scrutiny of right to equality as enshrined in Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution.”
18. Two aspects of the scheme are material to the present
case. The increment is linked to the passing of the higher degree. The
scheme also contemplates its grant to a teacher working in the Secondary
Grade post, and does not make promotion as BT Assistant a condition for
it. The total is limited to two incentive increments, equivalent to four
advance increments, in the entire service. The petitioner has drawn no
increment for his B.A. and B.Ed. qualifications, and the increment for his
M.A. degree is well within that limit.
19. The condition on which the petitioner was appointed must
be seen against this background. Graduate teachers such as the petitioner
were appointed to Secondary Grade posts as there was a dearth of
diploma qualified teachers. They were appointed on the condition that
they would not claim the incentive increment applicable to a Graduate
__________
Page  11  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
teacher. The petitioner has not claimed it for his B.A. and B.Ed. degrees.
He has only claimed it for his M.A. degree, which he acquired ten years
after joining service, after obtaining permission from the 4th respondent.
20. This Court has held more than once that an undertaking of
this kind does not stand in the way of a claim for a higher qualification
acquired later and thus the same is no longer res integra . In the State of
Tamil Nadu v. V.S. Louis Rani , 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2968 , an
Hon’ble Division Bench dealt with a Secondary Grade Teacher who had
given such an undertaking at the time of joining and held as follows:
"4. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein has
given an undertaking at the time of joining the teaching
service that she would not claim any incentive since at
that time she was holding degree qualification. So, she
was appointed as Secondary Grade teacher in the fifth
appellant school. Thereafter, she acquired higher
qualifications viz., M.Sc., and M.Ed., Therefore,
acquiring higher qualification will not in any way
prevent the respondent from claiming incentive for higher
qualifications. We do not find any infirmity in the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 29.09.2010.
Consequently, this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed."
__________
Page  12  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
21. Following Louis Rani (supra) , this Court in S. Saleth Mary v.
The Director of Elementary Education , CDJ 2012 MHC 4601 , took the
same view and the relevant paragraph from the Judgment reads thus:
“8. In my considered view, the undertaking is
misconceived by the Department. The undertaking is that the
petitioner could not claim incentive increment for B.A. and
B.Ed., Degree. Rightly, she has not claimed incentive increment
for the said qualification. In similar circumstances, I allowed
the Writ Petition by an order, dated 23.04.2012 in W.P. (MD)
No. 6043 of 2010 in A. Mary v. The Director of Elementary
Education, Chennai. The relevant passage from paragraph Nos.
10 & 11 in the said judgement is extracted hereunder:-
As per the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioner is
not entitled to claim incentive increments for her higher
qualification viz., B.A., B.Ed., the B.T Assistants shall not be
appointed against the Secondary Grade vacancy. In view of the
dearth of qualified persons, pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 539
Education (M1) Department, dated 21.04.1986, B.T. Assistants
were appointed in Secondary Grade Post. The Government
Order contemplates that the B.T or Tamil Pandits appointed to
a Secondary Grade vacancy shall not claim incentive increment
for higher qualification viz., graduation and B.Ed.
11. In this case, the petitioner is not claiming incentive
increments for B.A., and B.Ed. On the other hand, she is
claiming incentive increment for M.Ed., which she studied after
she joined as Secondary Grade Teacher. Hence, in my
considered view, the impugned order, which refuses to grant
incentive increments, on the ground that the claim for incentive
__________
Page  13  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
increment is contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 539, Education (M1)
Department, dated 21.04.1986, has no basis.”
22. The appeals filed by the State in a batch of matters, which
included the appeal against the order in Saleth Mary (supra) , were
dismissed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Director of
Elementary Education v. The Correspondent, St. Joseph Middle
School , 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13973 in the following terms:
“3. The reason for refusing the incentive increment is on
ground that the writ petitioners when they were appointed
had given an undertaking that they will not claim incentive
increment when they acquire higher qualification.
4. Similar issue was considered by the Division Bench in
the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Louis in W.A.(MD) No.
511 of 2011 dated 27.06.2011. After considering the
objections raised by the Government, which is similar to
objections raised in these appeals, the Court pointed out
that the respondent therein, had acquired higher
qualification M.Sc., and M.Ed., and acquiring higher
education will not prevent the writ petitioners from
claiming the incentive increment for higher qualification.
Therefore, the order passed by the writ Court, granting
relief to the teacher was affirmed and the appeal filed by
the State was dismissed. The State preferred a special leave
petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Slp.C.C. No.
__________
Page  14  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
13056 of 2014, which was dismissed by an order dated
25.08.2014. It is seen that the judgment rendered by the
Division Bench has been implemented by the Government
in G.O.Ms. No. (3d) No. 13 School Education Department,
dated 06.02.2015. The writ Court, took into consideration,
the decision of the Division Bench in the case of
Premkumari v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2008) 5 Mad LJ
1349), while granting relief to the writ petitioners.”
23. From the above decisions, it follows that the condition on
which the petitioner was appointed should be only to his B.A. and B.Ed.
degrees. I therefore have no hesitation to hold that the undertaking on
which the petitioner was appointed is no bar to his claim for incentive
increment for the M.A. (History) degree which he acquired in 2006
while working as a Secondary Grade Teacher.
24. I now turn to the G.O. 83 that is impugned in this writ petition.
The said G.O gave relaxation to the no-incentive condition that was
imposed in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Graduate
Teachers appointed against the backlog vacancies under G.O.Ms.No.113,
dated 14.03.1997, and G.O.Ms.No.301, dated 15.10.1999. The petitioner
was not appointed against those vacancies, and he does not fall within the
specified category. Further, he does not need the relaxation of the
__________
Page  15  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
condition, as it never covered his M.A. degree and thus his right to
incentive increment does not hinge on this G.O. 83. His claim neither
depends on the G.O 83 nor is defeated by it.
25. A similar course was adopted by an Order of this Court in A.
Masanamuthu v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others , W.P.(MD)
No.57 of 2019, dated 28.02.2020, where a challenge to the very same
Government Order was considered. After referring to R. Premakumari
(supra) and St. Joseph Middle School (supra), the learned Single Judge
held as follows:
"5.In view of the aforesaid settled propositions, the
respondents may not be justified in placing reliance on
the said GO, when the law on this aspect has been laid
down much earlier in the aforesaid decisions. While that
being so, the petitioner would be entitled for the incentive
increments, without reference to the aforesaid GO."
The said order was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in The
Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. A. Masanamuthu and
another , W.A.(MD) No.442 of 2021, dated 08.07.2021.
__________
Page  16  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
26. Since the petitioner’s entitlement to incentive increment can be
traced to the general scheme, it is unnecessary for this Court to examine
whether the classification made in G.O.Ms.No.83 is sustainable. The
matter, however, does not end there. The scheme of incentive increment
has since been withdrawn. By G.O.Ms.No.37, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020, the
Government cancelled the scheme in all departments. Clauses (i), (iv) and
(vi) of paragraph 6 of that Government Order read as follows:
"i. As a policy decision, the scheme of sanction of
advance increment for acquiring higher qualification in
all departments and all orders issued by all departments
for sanction of advance increment for possessing higher
qualification, as a whole, be cancelled / dispensed with
immediate effect.
iv. The advance increment for acquiring higher
qualification already granted to Government Servants
need not be effected any recovery.
vi. The cases of Government servants who have acquired
higher qualification prior to issue of this general order,
and not sanctioned with advance increments be examined
separately as per the previous orders issued, if any, by
the administrative department concerned and with
reference to the posts specified in that order and if he is
otherwise qualified, then the advance increment may be
sanctioned by the administrative department concerned
after obtaining concurrence of Finance department. If no
__________
Page  17  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
previous orders were issued by any of the department
concerned, then they are not eligible for sanction of any
advance increments for passing higher qualification
irrespective of the post held / degree acquired."
27. By G.O.Ms.No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(FR-IV) Department, dated 15.10.2020, the Government clarified that the
cases of Government servants who had acquired higher qualification
before 10.03.2020 and were not sanctioned advance increment may be
examined under paragraph 6(vi) of G.O.Ms.No.37, and that orders were
to be issued before 31.03.2021. Thereafter, by G.O.Ms.No.95, Human
Resources Management (FR-IV) Department, dated 26.10.2023, the
Government replaced the scheme with a lumpsum payment. Paragraph 7
of that Government Order reads as follows:
"7. Now, it has come to the notice of the Government
that substantial number of claims are pending from
candidates with higher educational qualifications. Hence,
to expeditiously process and bring clarity to the scheme
of granting incentive, in partial modification of the
orders issued in the Government Order second and third
read above and clarifications issued in the Governing
Letter fourth read above, the cut-off date for sanction of
advance increments for having acquired higher
educational qualifications ended and the new scheme of
sanction of lumpsum amount is ordered to take effect
__________
Page  18  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
from 10.03.2020. Thus, the clarification issued in
Government Order second read above and the
Government Letter fourth read above are harmonized to
ensure that, all pending applications as on 10.03.2020
and claims made subsequently for sanction of benefits for
having acquired higher educational qualifications shall
be disposed as per this new scheme of granting lump sum
incentives only and not the earlier scheme of granting
increments in salary. This principle would ensure
expeditious disposal of all pending claims and also
maintain parity and equal treatment between the claims
pending as on date and for the persons acquiring higher
educational qualifications in future also."
28. The validity of G.O.Ms.No.95 was upheld by an Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in V. Padma and others v. State of Tamil
Nadu and others , in W.A. No.1215 of 2024, batch, dated 08.06.2026.
The Division Bench held as follows:
“17. Regarding the cut off date fixed by the Government,
the constitutional courts reiterated that fixing of cut off
date for implementing certain financial concession
cannot be construed as illegal. In the present case, grant
of advance increment was cancelled in G.O.Ms.No.37
dated 10.03.2020 and the said date is fixed as cut off
date, which cannot be said to be infirm. Fixing of cut off
date while implementing the pay commission or
__________
Page  19  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
concessions relating to payment of additional monetary
benefits is inevitable and fixation of such cut off dates are
recognised by the Courts. The Government Order deals
with the pending applications as well as future
applications. Therefore, cancellation of the policy of
advance increment cannot be said to be in violation of
the principles of law."
29. An Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in S. Kalaiselvi v. State of
Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 27261 of 2019, batch dated 11.06.2026, while
answering a reference on the entitlement of Middle School Headmasters
to incentive increment for B.Ed. qualification, considered G.O.Ms.No. 37
and G.O.Ms.No.95 and held as follows:
“9. As far as applications pending prior to
10.03.2020, wherein advance increments are not
sanctioned and applications submitted after the cut off
date of 10.03.2020 are concerned, all such applications
are to be strictly considered in accordance with the new
scheme implemented by Government vide G.O.(Ms)
No.95, Human Resources Management (FR-IV)
Department dated 26.10.2023. Even in respect of
applications submitted prior to the cut off date of
10.03.2020, no right accrued to employees and therefore,
such applications are also to be considered in terms of
G.O.(Ms) No.95, Human Resources Management (FR-IV)
Department dated 26.10.2023.”
__________
Page  20  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
30. The decisions thus draw a clear line. Where the incentive
increment was sanctioned before 10.03.2020, the employee is protected.
Where it was not, the claim can be dealt with only under G.O.Ms.No.95,
even if the application had been made before the cut-off date.
G.O.Ms.No.37 itself, by paragraph 6(iv), preserves the increments
already granted. The petitioner falls on the protected side of that line. The
petitioner obtained permission before acquiring the degree well before
10.03.2020, and having claimed no increment for his B.Ed. qualification,
is well within the limit of two incentive increments. His increment for the
M.A. (History) degree was sanctioned by the proceedings of the second
respondent dated 28.08.2018, more than a year and a half before
10.03.2020. In the result, the relief sought for is moulded.
31. In the result the writ petition is partly allowed. The prayer
seeking to quash G.O.Ms.No 83, School Education (Elementary
Education 1(2) Department, dated 28.04.2017, is rejected. The 1st and
2nd respondents are hereby directed to award the petitioner, incentive
increment with effect from the date of acquiring M.A degree in the year
2006 and consequently the proceedings dated 28.08.2018 in
Na.Ka.No.2892/A1/2018 is quashed insofar as it is restricting the
sanction of incentive increment with effect from 01.04.2017.
__________
Page  21  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
Accordingly, the arrears of incentive increment shall be disbursed to the
petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AM
__________
Page  22  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
To
1. The Secretary To Government,
Government of Tamilnadu
(School Education And Elementary Education Department)
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Chief Educational Officer
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli Dist.
3. The District Educational
Officer, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli Dist.
__________
Page  23  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )

WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
AM
WP(MD) No. 2542 of 2019
-10-2026
__________
Page  24  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 05:43:32 pm )