Incentive increments sanctioned before withdrawal remain protected and are payable from the qualification date.

The petitioner, a Backward Class graduate, was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in an aided school in 1996.

His appointment was subject to a condition that he would not claim incentive increments for his existing B.A. and B.Ed. qualifications.

After obtaining permission from the school, he acquired an M.A. in History in 2006 and sought an incentive increment for that degree.

G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 28.04.2017 relaxed the no-incentive condition for specified Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe teachers appointed against backlog vacancies; the respondents declined to extend that relaxation to the petitioner.

In 2018, the second respondent sanctioned an increment for the M.A. degree only from 01.04.2017.

The dispute concerned the period from acquisition of the degree in 2006 to 31.03.2017.

G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10.01.1969, as modified by G.O.Ms.No.1024, dated 09.12.1993, provided incentive increments for specified higher qualifications, including an M.A., and capped the total at four advance increments during service.

The Court applied R. Premakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 5 MLJ 1349, on the purpose of incentive increments and equal treatment of teachers acquiring higher qualifications.

The Court applied State of Tamil Nadu v. V.S. Louis Rani, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2968, and Director of Elementary Education v. The Correspondent, St. Joseph Middle School, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13973, for the principle that an undertaking relating to existing qualifications does not bar a claim for a higher qualification acquired later.

G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 10.03.2020 discontinued the increment scheme but preserved increments already granted; G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 26.10.2023 directed that pending and later claims be dealt with under the replacement lump-sum scheme.

The Court also relied on V. Padma v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.A. No. 1215 of 2024 batch, and the Full Bench decision in S. Kalaiselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 27261 of 2019 batch, concerning the cut-off date and treatment of pending claims.

The petitioner did not seek an increment for his B.A. or B.Ed.; he sought one for an M.A. acquired in service, which fell within the general incentive scheme and its service-wide ceiling.

The appointment undertaking therefore did not bar the M.A. claim.

Nor did G.O.Ms.No.83 determine his entitlement: it addressed a specified category of SC/ST backlog appointees, whereas the petitioner’s claim arose independently under the general scheme.

Although the scheme was later withdrawn, the petitioner’s increment had been sanctioned by proceedings dated 28.08.2018, before the 10.03.2020 cut-off.

The Court accordingly treated it as an increment already granted and within the protection preserved by G.O.Ms.No.37, rather than as an un-sanctioned claim governed by G.O.Ms.No.95.

The Court rejected the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.83 but directed the first and second respondents to grant the petitioner the incentive increment for his M.A. degree from the date he acquired it in 2006.

It quashed the second respondent’s proceedings dated 28.08.2018 insofar as they restricted the increment’s effective date to 01.04.2017 and directed payment of arrears within eight weeks of receipt of the order.