Government is not bound to grant incentive increments for higher qualifications after policy discontinuation.

The petitioner was appointed as a Village Administrative Officer (VAO) on 07.02.2013

Although he possessed a B.Sc. and M.Sc. prior to his appointment, he did not claim incentive increments at the time of entry

On 09.03.2022, nearly nine years into his service, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking a "higher start of pay" based on G.O.Ms.No.321 (1998)

The petitioner alleged that a similarly placed individual, one Dhanasekaran, received the benefit in 2015 and claimed that denial to him was arbitrary

The respondents contended that the scheme had been progressively withdrawn and finally abolished in 2020

1. Whether a government servant can claim the benefit of a higher start of pay based on a 1998 Government Order after the scheme for such incentives has been officially discontinued by a subsequent policy decision.

2. Whether the court should direct the government to review the performance of existing beneficiaries of the incentive scheme to ensure the objective of public service efficiency is being met.

G.O.Ms.No.321, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 02.07.1998, which originally granted a higher start of pay to graduate employees in posts where SSLC was the minimum qualification

G.O.Ms.No.241, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013, which withdrew these benefits for several categories appointed after 01.04.2013

G.O.Ms.No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 10.03.2020, which took a policy decision to discontinue the entire scheme of advance/incentive increments throughout government service and prohibited entertaining fresh proposals

The court reasoned that while G.O.Ms.No.321 initially extended benefits to graduate VAOs, the landscape of government policy had shifted significantly by the time the petitioner applied in 2022

The court noted that the petitioner delayed his claim for nine years, by which time G.O.Ms.No.37 had explicitly terminated the incentive scheme and barred new applications

Regarding the petitioner's argument of parity with other employees (Article 14), the court found that a policy change ending a scheme precludes fresh claims even if others were previously benefited

The court observed that since the incentive was originally designed to improve administrative efficiency in the public interest, the government has the prerogative—and perhaps the duty—to review whether those currently receiving the recurring financial benefit are actually delivering better performance

The court issued a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu to devise a transparent mechanism to periodically review the performance of those existing VAOs still receiving the higher start of pay to ensure the original objective of enhanced public service is being achieved

No costs were awarded