Validly conferred advance increments for higher qualifications cannot be unsettled at the verge of retirement.

The Petitioner was appointed as a teacher on June 30, 1986, under the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh

In 2012, after obtaining departmental permission, he pursued an M.Ed. degree at his own expense, completing it in 2016

Consequently, the department granted him two advance increments effective February 17, 2016, pursuant to a Government circular dated February 16, 1999; these increments were duly recorded in his service book

Upon the Petitioner’s retirement in 2023, Respondent No. 2 (Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension) raised an objection during the verification of the service book, questioning the validity of the increments and demanding the production of the underlying circular

The Petitioner challenged this inaction/objection as arbitrary and sought directions for the certification of his service book and release of retiral benefits

1. Whether the objection raised by the Treasury and Pension Department regarding the Petitioner's advance increments at the stage of retirement was legally sustainable

2. Whether the Petitioner remained entitled to the benefit of advance increments under the circular dated 16.02.1999 despite subsequent policy changes cited by the State

The Court primarily relied on the Government of Madhya Pradesh (Tribal and Scheduled Caste Welfare Department) Circular dated 16.02.1999, which reflects a policy decision based on the Supreme Court's ruling in SLP No. 9895 dated 22.07.1996, providing two advance increments to teachers appointed up to 22.10.1996 who acquire higher training qualifications (B.Ed., M.Ed., etc.) at their own expense

The Court also addressed the State’s reliance on the Chhattisgarh Government Circular dated 07.03.2020, which sought to restrict increments for qualifications that became "mandatory" after 1993, but found it did not override vested rights granted under prior valid policies

The Court observed that the Petitioner satisfied all conditions of the 1999 circular: he was appointed before the 1996 cutoff, obtained prior permission, and completed the M.Ed. at his own expense

The increments were granted in 2018 and remained unchallenged for several years

The Court reasoned that raising an objection at the "fag end" of service or post-retirement is arbitrary and mechanical, especially when no fraud, misrepresentation, or illegality was attributed to the employee

It held that once a benefit is validly conferred and recorded in the service book based on an existing policy, the Treasury Department cannot unilaterally reopen or unsettle the matter during the ministerial act of verification for pension purposes

The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to delete the objection and certify the service book by including the two advance increments

Furthermore, the Respondents were directed to revise and release all consequential retiral and pensionary benefits to the Petitioner within 90 days of receipt of the order