Unsanctioned pre-cutoff incentive claims create no vested right to increments and fall under the lump-sum scheme.

The petitioners, including government employees and teachers, challenged G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 10 March 2020, which discontinued the scheme of advance increments for acquiring higher qualifications, and G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 26 October 2023, which provided for a lump-sum incentive and applied that scheme to pending claims.

They sought the benefit of the earlier increment scheme, principally on the basis that they had acquired higher qualifications before the 2020 cut-off date and, in some cases, had applied for or obtained permission to pursue those qualifications.

Earlier Single Judge and Division Bench decisions had reached differing conclusions on whether such employees retained a claim to increments; a Full Bench subsequently held that unsanctioned claims, including claims pending before the cut-off date, were to be considered under G.O.Ms.No.95.

The petitioners nevertheless challenged the application and validity of the Government Orders and the Full Bench’s reasoning.

Whether employees who acquired higher qualifications before 10 March 2020, but whose advance increments had not been sanctioned by that date, were entitled to increments under the earlier scheme or only to the lump-sum incentive under G.O.Ms.No.95.

Whether the petitioners could challenge or avoid the Full Bench’s ruling before the present Court, including on the ground that the Full Bench had exceeded the scope of its reference.

Whether the petitioners had established grounds to invalidate or resist application of G.O.Ms.No.37 and G.O.Ms.No.95.

Under G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 10 March 2020, the former scheme of advance increments for higher qualifications was discontinued; G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 26 October 2023 provided the replacement lump-sum incentive scheme and applied it to pending as well as later claims.

The Full Bench in S. Kalaiselvi v. State of Tamil Nadu held that increments sanctioned before 10 March 2020 were protected, but claims not sanctioned by that date—including pending applications—were to be considered under G.O.Ms.No.95, since no right to an increment had accrued merely from an application.

The Court treated that Full Bench ruling, together with the relevant Division Bench decisions, as binding on it.

It also applied the principle that a policy-based incentive is not, merely by being available under an earlier scheme, a vested right that prevents the Government from changing the scheme.

The Court considered itself bound by the Full Bench’s determination that the replacement scheme governed claims for which increments had not been sanctioned before the cut-off date, irrespective of whether the employee had already acquired the qualification or had a pending application.

It rejected the attempt to reargue the Full Bench’s jurisdiction or reasoning in these writ petitions, observing that any challenge to that ruling had to be pursued by review or before the Supreme Court.

It also noted that the Government had not removed the incentive altogether but had replaced increments with a lump-sum payment, and found no basis to displace the governing decisions on the petitioners’ challenges.

The batch of writ petitions was dismissed, but the petitioners were permitted to apply to the authorities for the lump-sum incentive, which the authorities were directed to consider within twelve weeks of receiving a representation.

The Court further stated that, if the pending Special Leave Petition was decided in the petitioners’ favour, they could seek reopening of the issue in accordance with that decision.