IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.(MD).No. of 2025
V.Venkatasubramanian,
S/o.
No.18/19/51/2A Dhanyanagar,
Bharathi 2nd Street,
Srivilliputhur-626125.
… Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Chief Secretary,
Department of Human Resource Management (FR-IV),
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009

2. The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. By its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.

3. The Director of School Education,

College Road, Chennai -600 006.

4. The Joint Director of School Education,

College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

5. The Chief Educational Officer,

Virudhunagar District.

6. The District Educational Officer,

Virudhunagar District.
…Respondents

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER

I, V.Venkatasubramanian, S/o. , aged about years, No.18/19/51/2A
Dhanyanagar, Bharathi 2nd Street, Srivilliputhur-626125 temporarily came
down to Madurai do hereby solemnly affirm & sincerely state as follows:

1. I am the petitioner herein and as such I am well aware of the

facts of the case.
 2. It is submitted that the Petitioner is presently employed as a
Secondary Grade Teacher/BT Assistant under the administrative control of
the School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, and has
rendered unblemished service in the field of public education with utmost
dedication and sincerity.

3. It is submitted that in order to incentivize the professional

development of school teachers and to encourage the pursuit of higher
educational qualifications, the Government of Tamil Nadu, through
G.O.Ms.No.42, Education Department, dated 10.01.1969, introduced a
policy granting incentive increments to teachers who acquire higher
qualifications during their service.

4. It is submitted that the said policy was later clarified and affirmed
by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1023, Education, Science and
Technology Department, dated 09.12.1993, whereby it was provided that
school teachers shall be entitled to a maximum of two sets of incentive
increments for acquiring higher qualifications.

5. It is submitted that in pursuance of the said policy and with the

legitimate expectation of receiving incentive increments upon the
acquisition of additional qualifications, the Petitioner applied for
permission to pursue higher studies.

6. It is submitted that, as per G.O.Ms.No.101, School Education

Department, dated 18.05.2018, teachers were permitted to obtain prior
approval from the Chief Educational Officer (CEO) to pursue higher
studies. Accordingly, the competent authority, viz., the Chief Educational
Officer, upon due consideration, was pleased to grant permission to the
Petitioner on [DD/MM/YYYY] to pursue additional qualifications, subject to
conditions, inter alia, that the Petitioner shall not claim more than two
sets of incentive increments, which, by necessary implication, reflects the
underlying intent to permit the grant of two sets of incentive increments
to eligible teachers upon the acquisition of higher qualifications.

7. It is submitted that, based on the said permission and relying

upon the assurances enshrined in the above Government Orders, the
Petitioner, after diligently discharging teaching duties during regular
working hours, devoted substantial personal time during evenings,
weekends, and holidays to pursue higher education. This academic
endeavour was undertaken with a sincere desire to enhance professional
competence and to marginally improve the Petitioner's standard of living
through lawful and meritorious means.

8. It is submitted that the Petitioner was aggrieved to learn that the

Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.37, Finance Department, dated 10.03.2020,
introduced a cut-off date, whereby the benefit of incentive increments
was restricted only to those who had acquired higher qualifications on or
before 10.03.2020. This policy, though silent about the School Education
Department, was later extended to apply to school teachers vide
G.O.Ms.No.116, School Education Department, dated 15.10.2020.

9. It is submitted that the application of G.O.Ms.No.37

retrospectively, to deny benefits to those who were already granted
permission to pursue higher education and who were actively engaged in
such studies as on the date of issuance of the G.O., is arbitrary,
unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.

10. It is submitted that the Petitioner, having been granted

permission by the competent authority well prior to 10.03.2020, and
having undertaken the academic pursuit relying upon a consistent
Government policy in force for over five decades, has acquired a vested
right to claim the incentive increments upon completion of the higher
qualification. The denial of such benefit now, by invoking a subsequent
Government Order with retrospective effect, is impermissible in law and
offends the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

11. It is submitted that similarly placed teachers, who had obtained

prior permission and completed their higher qualifications within the
earlier framework, have been granted the benefit of incentive increments.
To deprive the Petitioner alone, merely because the completion of the
qualification fell after the arbitrarily fixed date, is violative of the principle
of equal treatment of equals and amounts to hostile discrimination.

12. It is submitted that such denial, despite the Petitioner having

acted in compliance with all procedural requirements, including obtaining
official permission, constitutes a classic case of promissory estoppel and
causes grave injustice—more so when the academic pursuit was
undertaken with considerable personal sacrifice and in the bona fide belief
that the Government would honour its commitment.

13. It is submitted that the policy shift brought about by

G.O.Ms.No.37, dated 10.03.2020, cannot, in equity or in law, have
retrospective effect so as to adversely affect the Petitioner, who had
already embarked upon the process of higher education with due
authorisation. The impugned denial not only takes away a lawful
expectation but also creates an artificial disparity among similarly
circumstanced government teachers.

GROUNDS

A. Because the impugned G.O.(Ms) Nos. 37 and 116, dated

10.03.2020 and 15.10.2020 respectively, are arbitrary, discriminatory,
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, insofar as
they impose a retrospective cut-off date which unfairly prejudices the
rights of teachers who had already obtained valid permission to pursue
higher studies prior to the said G.O.s and were actively enrolled in such
courses.

B. Because the Petitioners had obtained prior written permission

from the competent authority under G.O.Ms.No.101, School Education
Department, dated 18.05.2018, and thus acquired a vested right to be
considered for incentive increments upon successful completion of their
respective higher educational qualifications, in accordance with the long-
standing Government Orders viz., G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 10.01.1969 and
G.O.Ms.No.1023 dated 09.12.1993.

C. Because the language of G.O.Ms.No.101, dated 18.05.2018,

which permits pursuit of additional qualifications subject to a ceiling of
two incentive increments, by necessary implication reflects the State’s
policy and intent to award such increments upon fulfillment of conditions,
including valid prior permission. The Petitioners, having complied with
such terms, cannot now be denied the benefit based on a subsequent,
retrospective policy change.

D. Because the Petitioners acted in full compliance with statutory

and administrative procedures, undertook academic programs at their
own cost and personal sacrifice, and thus acquired a legitimate
expectation that upon completion of the approved qualifications, they
would be granted the corresponding incentive increments.

E. Because the retrospective application of G.O.Ms.No.37 to teachers

who were already in the midst of pursuing higher education with
departmental sanction results in hostile discrimination between similarly
situated teachers — i.e., those who completed qualifications slightly
before 10.03.2020 and those who completed after that date, despite both
groups having obtained valid prior approval and acting under the same
regulatory framework.
 F. Because the G.O.(Ms) Nos. 37 and 116, when applied to
Petitioners who commenced studies with departmental sanction before
the cut-off date, amount to a breach of the doctrine of promissory
estoppel, as the Government had, by conduct and policy, made an
enforceable promise which the Petitioners relied upon in good faith, to
their detriment.

G. Because such withdrawal of incentive increments, after allowing

and encouraging teachers to pursue higher qualifications, undermines the
spirit and purpose of the original policy in G.O.Ms.No.42 and
G.O.Ms.No.1023, which was introduced to promote professional
development, academic excellence, and improved quality of teaching.

H. Because the impugned G.O.s fail to make a rational classification

and instead create an artificial and unreasonable distinction between
teachers based solely on the date of completion, irrespective of whether
the qualification was pursued with prior departmental sanction and under
a legally valid incentive framework.

I. Because there exists no overriding public interest or compelling

justification for the impugned retrospective cut-off which curtails rights
already accrued and further places the Petitioners at a financial
disadvantage without any fault on their part.

J. Because the denial of increments to the Petitioners, while others

who completed qualifications just prior to the fixed date were granted the
benefit, amounts to unequal treatment of equals, which is constitutionally
impermissible under Article 14 and vitiates the entire classification under
the impugned G.O.s.

K. Because the retrospective application of G.O.Ms.No.37 and 116

has the effect of penalizing Petitioners for delay not attributable to them,
such as administrative delays in course completion or institutional
schedules, and thereby imposes an undue burden on those who had acted
diligently.

L. Because the impugned action amounts to taking away a lawful

and accrued financial benefit, which had become part of the service
conditions of teachers upon obtaining prior permission and pursuing
higher studies. Such retrospective alteration is violative of service
jurisprudence principles and natural justice.

In the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more
particularly in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORIFIED MANDAMUS to call
for the records relating to the impugned G.O.(Ms).No.95, Human
Resources Management (FR-IV) Department, dated 26.10.2023, issued by
the first respondent Chief Secretary to Government, quash the same, in so
far as it restricts the petitioners herein from the grant and payment of
incentive increments for acquiring their respective additional higher
educational qualifications and further direct the respondents herein to
sanction and award forthwith the incentive increment (2 advance
increments) to the petitioners herein for acquiring their respective
additional higher educational qualification viz., M.Phil., degree in terms of
the G.O.(Ms)Nos.37 and 116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV)
Department, dated 10.03.2020 and 15.10.2020 respectively with all
arrears and attendant benefits and pass such further or other order as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Madurai

This the day of June 2025 Before Me,
And signed his name in my
Presence.
Advocate, Madurai.