Cancellation of advance increments is valid; pending claims must be considered under the lump-sum incentive scheme.

The petitioner challenged G.O. (Ms.) No. 37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10 March 2020, and G.O. (Ms.) No. 116, dated 15 October 2020, issued by the State Government, seeking their quashing.

The impugned Government Orders concerned the cancellation and clarification of the scheme granting advance increments to government employees who acquired higher educational qualifications.

During the pendency of the matter, the Government issued G.O. (Ms.) No. 95 dated 26 October 2023, introducing a scheme for payment of a lump-sum incentive for acquiring higher educational qualifications and providing that pending applications, including those made before 10 March 2020, would be considered under the new scheme.

The Court noted that the same legal issue had already been considered by a Division Bench in V. Padma and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 MHC 2247.

1. Whether G.O. (Ms.) No. 37 dated 10 March 2020, cancelling the scheme of granting advance increments for acquiring higher educational qualifications, was legally invalid.

2. Whether the clarification issued through G.O. (Ms.) No. 116 dated 15 October 2020 was liable to be quashed.

3. Whether fixing 10 March 2020 as the cut-off date and directing pending claims to be considered under the subsequent lump-sum incentive scheme violated any legal or constitutional principle.

The Court applied the principle that the Government may modify or withdraw a financial concession or service-benefit scheme as a matter of policy, provided the decision is not otherwise legally infirm.

It relied on G.O. (Ms.) No. 37 dated 10 March 2020, which cancelled the advance-increment scheme; G.O. (Ms.) No. 116 dated 15 October 2020, which clarified the cancellation policy; and G.O. (Ms.) No. 95 dated 26 October 2023, which replaced the earlier scheme with a lump-sum incentive scheme and directed that pending and future claims be dealt with under the new scheme.

The Court followed the Division Bench ruling in V. Padma and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 MHC 2247, which held that fixation of a cut-off date for implementing financial concessions is not, by itself, illegal, and that the Government’s cancellation or modification of the advance-increment scheme was permissible.

The Court held that the challenge was no longer res integra because the Division Bench in V. Padma had already upheld the Government’s policy framework.

The Court found that G.O. No. 37 cancelled the earlier advance-increment concession, while G.O. No. 116 clarified the position and G.O. No. 95 subsequently provided an alternative lump-sum benefit.

Since G.O. No. 95 expressly covered applications pending before 10 March 2020 as well as subsequent claims, the Court considered that the policy maintained parity between pending applicants and employees acquiring qualifications in the future.

Applying the principle that a cut-off date connected with financial concessions is permissible, the Court concluded that fixing 10 March 2020 as the cut-off date was not arbitrary or legally infirm.

It held that the cancellation of the advance-increment scheme and its replacement by the lump-sum incentive scheme under G.O. (Ms.) No. 95 dated 26 October 2023 were valid.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. Any connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.