Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J
Arulraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.6721 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Incentive Increments
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a B.T. Assistant (Science), acquired an M.A. degree and sought incentive increments. Earlier, the authorities rejected the claim, but a previous court order directed them to reconsider the representation. The authorities subsequently rejected the claim again, relying on G.O.(Ms).No.95 dated 26.10.2023, which substituted the incentive increment scheme with a lump sum payment. The petitioner challenged this action.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner acquired the qualification before the incentive increment scheme was cancelled/modified by the 2020 notification. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefits under the scheme existing at the time of acquisition, regardless of subsequent government orders.
Issues: Whether the government can retrospectively apply a new policy (lump sum payment) to deny incentive increments to employees who acquired higher qualifications before the policy change.
Ratio Decidendi: Government orders (G.O.(Ms).No.37 and G.O.(Ms).No.95) are not retrospective in nature. Accrued rights for incentive increments for qualifications acquired prior to 10.03.2020 cannot be denied or replaced by lump sum payments through circulars or subsequent clarifications.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.Amala
For the Respondents: N.Satheesh Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the relief sought by the petitioner. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual history of the petitioner's claim and prior litigation. (Para 3) |
| 3. contentions regarding the applicability of government orders concerning incentive increments. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. legal reasoning on the non-retrospective nature of administrative orders cancelling incentive increments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final direction to grant the petitioner the incentive increment. (Para 12 , 13) |
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent District Educational Officer in Na.Ka.No.5214/a3/2022, dated 07.03.2025 quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to sanction and disburse forthwith the incentive increment (two advance increments) for the M.A Degree admissible to the petitioner without reference to G.O.(Ms).No.95, Human Resources Management (FR-IV) Department dated 26.10.2023.
For Petitioner : M/s.A.Amala
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
* * * * *
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned proceedings issued by the 4th respondent District Educational Officer dated 07.03.2025 in Na.Ka.No.5214/a3/2022, and further direct the respondents herein to sanction and disburse forthwith the incentive increment (two advance increments) for the M.A Degree admissible to the petitioner without reference to G.O.(Ms).No.95, Human Resources Management (FR-IV) Department, dated 26.10.2023.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.
3. The petitioner herein, who was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant in St.Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Susainagar, Thiruvannamalai District, on 12.06.1996 was subsequently promoted to the post of BT Assistant(Science) and presently working in the 5th respondent School. The petitioner was possessing higher qualification of M.A. Degree, and as such made a claim for award of incentive increment. However, the said request made by the petitioner was negatived by the respondent by proceedings O.Mu.No. 6756/A5/16, dated 14.09.2017, on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained prior permission for acquiring the said M.A. Degree. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.3330 of 2021. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by this Court by an order dated 22.02.2021, declaring that the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the third respondent herein with a represenation seeking for grant of incentive increment and on receipt of the same, the third respondent herein shall consider it. Accordingly, the Management of the concerned School has granted liberty to submit appropriate proposal to the District Educational Officer concerned for grant of incentive increment to the petitioner for having possessed higher educational qualification and further, the District Educational Officer was directed to consider the issue in the light of the observations made in the said order.
4. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for award of incentive increment not withstanding the influence of G.O.(Ms).No.37, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(FR-IV) Department, dated 10.03.2020 and the order issued in G.O.(Ms).No.95, Human Resources Management(FR-IV) Department, dated 26.10.2023 have no application to the case of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.19093 of 2020, dated 11.03.2024, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. (MD)No.1052 of 2024, dated 21.06.2024.
5. Per contra, Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, contended that
