Unsanctioned incentive-increment claims must be decided under the new scheme, not the cancelled policy.

K. Eswari had obtained an order dated 23 October 2024 in W.P. No. 10583 of 2021 concerning fixation of pay and entitlement to incentive increment in the Education Department.

The Chief Education Officer, District Education Officer, and Block Education Officer, Erode, challenged that order by filing the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

During the pendency of the appeal, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court decided the governing issue relating to incentive increments in W.A. No. 27261 of 2017 and connected cases on 11 June 2026.

Whether the respondent’s claim relating to incentive increment and pay fixation was required to be decided in accordance with the Full Bench ruling and the Government Orders governing the new incentive-increment scheme

Whether an employee could claim incentive increment under the cancelled policy contained in G.O.Ms. No. 42, Education Department, dated 10 January 1969, or was required to proceed under G.O.(Ms.) No. 95, Human Resources Management (FR-IV) Department, dated 26 October 2023

The Court applied the Full Bench ruling in W.A. No. 27261 of 2017 and connected cases, dated 11 June 2026.

Under that ruling, employees whose advance incentive increments had been sanctioned before G.O.Ms. No. 37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 10 March 2020, were protected; recoveries of excess pay made after long periods were also liable to be set aside where hardship would result.

Applications pending before 10 March 2020, where increments had not yet been sanctioned, as well as applications made after that date, were to be considered strictly under the new scheme introduced by G.O.(Ms.) No. 95, dated 26 October 2023.

The earlier incentive-increment policy under G.O.Ms. No. 42, Education Department, dated 10 January 1969, had been cancelled and could not independently support a claim; employees could instead apply under the new policy.

The Division Bench held that the issues raised in the appeal were no longer res integra because they had been authoritatively settled by the Full Bench.

Applying that ruling, the Court directed the appellant Department to undertake the appropriate exercise of pay fixation and determine the respondent’s entitlement to increment under the Government Orders presently in force.

Thus, the respondent’s claim was not to be adjudicated solely under the cancelled 1969 policy, but in accordance with the protective principles and the new scheme identified by the Full Bench.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.