Subsequent cancellation cannot defeat an incentive-increment claim made while the governing order remained in force.

The petitioner acquired a B.Ed. qualification in 2009 and claimed an incentive increment under G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10 January 1969.

The District Educational Officer rejected his claim by proceedings dated 2 June 2020.

The petitioner challenged that rejection and sought continuing payment of the incentive increment.

During the proceedings, the Court considered the effect of G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 10 March 2020, and the Full Bench’s subsequent order concerning incentive increments.

The petitioner did not appear at the hearing.

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s incentive-increment claim could be justified by the later cancellation of G.O.Ms.No.42 through G.O.Ms.No.37, where G.O.Ms.No.42 was in force when the petitioner applied.

2. Whether the petitioner should be required to submit a fresh application for consideration under the Government Orders currently in force.

G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10 January 1969, was the Government Order governing the petitioner’s claim while it remained in force.

G.O.Ms.No.37, Personal and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10 March 2020, cancelled G.O.Ms.No.42; the Court held that its subsequent cancellation could not validate rejection of a claim made when G.O.Ms.No.42 was in force.

The Court also noted that G.O.Ms.No.37 was later withdrawn by G.O.Ms.No.95, Human Resources Management (FR-IV) Department, dated 26 October 2023, and referred to the Full Bench’s order dated 11 June 2026, which directed fresh applications to be considered under the policy in G.O.Ms.No.95.

The Court reasoned that G.O.Ms.No.37 was not in force when the petitioner submitted his application; G.O.Ms.No.42 was then operative.

Accordingly, the later cancellation could not retrospectively justify the respondents’ rejection of the earlier claim.

Since G.O.Ms.No.37 had also subsequently been withdrawn, the Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh application, consistent with the Full Bench’s approach, for consideration under the Government Orders then in force.

It directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application and required the respondent authorities to consider it under the Government Orders in force, without reference to G.O.Ms.No.37.

No costs were awarded; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.