Non-possession of prescribed qualifications or failure to pass mandatory departmental tests precludes entitlement to annual increments.

The petitioner, currently a Head Clerk, was promoted to the post of Translator in the Judicial Department, Perambalur, on March 28, 2017

She received annual increments from 2017 until 2021

Subsequently, the respondent authorities stopped sanctioning her increments on the grounds that she did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated May 23, 2022, and July 9, 2024, which denied the increment and dearness allowance

1. Whether the petitioner is legally entitled to draw increments for the post of Translator despite not passing the prescribed departmental examinations

2. Whether the promotion granted in violation of statutory service rules entitles an employee to the monetary benefits attached to that post

The Court applied Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which stipulates that an employee is eligible for the drawal of increments only if they possess the requisite qualifications and have passed the tests prescribed under the relevant Service Rules

The rule mandates that the sanctioning of increments is contingent upon satisfying these statutory pre-requisites

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to pass the Translation Test papers (i) and (ii), which are essential qualifications for the post of Translator in the Judicial Department

Despite being promoted irregularly by the then Principal District Judge, the petitioner remained unqualified even after the promotion was effectuated

The Court reasoned that under Section 30 of the 2016 Act, increment is not an automatic right but is subject to acquiring the necessary qualifications or passing the prescribed tests

Since the petitioner never acquired the statutory qualification, she lacked the legal right to claim the increment

Furthermore, the Court noted that the initial promotion was granted in violation of the Act, leading to proposed disciplinary actions against the official who sanctioned it

The Court answered both issues in the negative, finding that she was ineligible to draw increments under the relevant service rules

Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld

No costs were awarded