Previously sanctioned incentive increments for permitted pre-abolition qualifications must be disbursed.

The petitioner, a B.T. Assistant (Science) at the sixth respondent school, obtained permission to pursue an M.Phil. in Zoology through part-time mode and completed the degree on 11 October 2017.

The Chief Educational Officer approved the course in October 2019.

The school sanctioned two advance increments from the date of completion in January 2020, and the District Educational Officer approved the sanction on 12 March 2020.

The monetary benefits were not disbursed following G.O. (Ms.) No.37, dated 10 March 2020, which cancelled the advance-increment scheme.

The petitioner sought a direction to implement the sanction and pay the consequential benefits.

Whether a teacher who acquired the higher qualification and claimed incentive increments before G.O. (Ms.) No.37 could be denied the benefit because the sanction was issued after that Government Order.

Whether the petitioner’s part-time M.Phil. qualification could be treated as ineligible under the cited UGC Regulations prohibiting M.Phil. programmes through distance education.

G.O. (Ms.) No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10 March 2020, cancelled the earlier advance-increment scheme but, under clause 6(vi), provided for consideration of qualifying cases where the higher qualification had been acquired before the Government Order and increments had not yet been sanctioned.

G.O. (Ms.) No.116, dated 15 October 2020, clarified the processing of such cases.

The Court also considered the UGC Regulations of 2009 and 2016, which prohibit M.Phil. programmes through distance education but do not, on the provisions cited, prohibit part-time M.Phil. study.

It applied the Division Bench ruling in The Director of Elementary School Education v. M. Fatima Vijaya Latha, which interpreted clause 6(vi) as preserving eligibility for qualifying teachers who acquired the higher qualification before G.O. (Ms.) No.37.

It distinguished the Full Bench decision in S. Kalaiselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu, which directed pending or later applications to be considered under the new scheme in G.O. (Ms.) No.95, because the petitioner’s increments had already been sanctioned.

The petitioner had obtained permission for the course, completed the M.Phil. before G.O. (Ms.) No.37, and had received sanction of two increments, approved by the District Educational Officer on 12 March 2020.

The Court treated clause 6(vi) as a saving provision for qualifying pre-cut-off cases and reasoned that denying consideration merely because the sanction followed the Government Order would make that clause redundant.

It held that S. Kalaiselvi did not govern the case because the petitioner was not seeking determination of an application left pending without sanction; the issue was payment under a sanction already accorded.

The UGC provisions relied upon by the respondents addressed distance education, whereas the official proceedings showed that the petitioner’s course was part-time.

The cited regulations therefore did not justify withholding the sanctioned increments.

It allowed the writ petition and directed respondents 1 to 5 to give effect to the sanction from 11 October 2017 and disburse the consequential monetary benefits, including arrears, within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.