A pre-cutoff incentive claim already under process remains payable despite formal sanction after scheme withdrawal.

The petitioner, a Headmistress, acquired a B.Ed. qualification in May 2018 after obtaining departmental permission and applied for an incentive increment on 5 August 2019.

The fourth respondent’s proceedings sanctioning the increment were signed on 12 March 2020, but the benefit was not disbursed despite submission of an arrear bill. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing disbursement of the sanctioned increment.

The respondents opposed relief on the ground that the sanction followed G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 10 March 2020 and lacked Finance Department concurrence.

Whether the petitioner could be denied the incentive increment because the sanction proceedings were signed after G.O.Ms.No.37, where she had acquired the qualification and applied for the increment before that Government Order.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to disbursement of the increment and consequential monetary benefits under the pre-existing scheme.

G.O.Ms.No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10 March 2020, discontinued the earlier scheme of advance increments but, under clause 6(vi), provided for separate examination of cases involving qualifications acquired before that date.

G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 15 October 2020, clarified the treatment of pre-G.O.Ms.No.37 cases.

The Court relied on the Division Bench’s interpretation in The Director of Elementary School Education v. M. Fatima Vijaya Latha, W.A.(MD) No. 975 of 2024, that G.O.Ms.No.37 did not operate retrospectively to exclude otherwise eligible teachers who acquired the qualification before its issue.

It also considered the Full Bench decision in S. Kalaiselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu, which directed that pending, unsanctioned applications be considered under G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 26 October 2023.

On the facts before it, the Court treated clause 6(vi) as preserving consideration of the petitioner’s pre-G.O.Ms.No.37 claim.

The petitioner’s qualification and application both pre-dated G.O.Ms.No.37.

Although the sanction proceedings bore a signature dated 12 March 2020, the Court noted that the proceedings themselves were undated and inferred from the signature and surrounding circumstances that they had been initiated and substantially processed before 10 March 2020.

It therefore held that the respondents could not defeat the claim solely because the formal proceedings were signed two days after the Government Order.

The Court distinguished the respondents’ reliance on S. Kalaiselvi by emphasizing that the petitioner’s claim had progressed to sanction, unlike an application that remained pending without sanction.

It directed the respondents to give effect to the sanction proceedings and disburse the increment arrears within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.