Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 212. 2003, passed by the State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.A.No.4120 of 2003, whereunder such Original Application filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. 2. Petitioner joined the service on 12. 1986 as Vocational Instructor in a Government Higher Secondary School. He possess the degrees of M.Com., M.A., M.Phil., M.Ed. The main grievance of the petitioner projected before the Tribunal was relating to grant of incentive increment, on account of the fact that the petitioner had acquired higher qualification, namely, M.Com., M.Phil., M.Ed. According to the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 1. 1969, incentive increment is granted to the teachers for acquiring higher qualification. The Government had introduced the vocational stream in the year 1978 and for the subjects which come under commerce and business, it had prescribed qualification of a degree with Accountancy and Auditing specialization. According to the petitioner, since he had acquired M.Com. and M.Ed., he was eligible to get incentive increment. 3. The Tribunal has rejected the contention of the petitioner by observing as follows:- “3. . . . The minimum qualification for a P.G. teacher is P.G. Degree and a degree in education. Therefore, the Government passed G.O. for the first time granting incentive advance to P.G. teachers also who have passed M.Ed. degree. But this also was intended only for the benefit of the P.G. teachers. The scheme of the incentive advances was covered by the G.Os. passed from time to time. There is no question of the applicant being entitled for any incentive advance. The incentive advance is given only as a concession or incentive for acquiring higher qualifications. So unless a G.O. has been passed granting incentive advance for craft teachers in the higher secondary scheme, they cannot claim the same as a matter of right. But I am told that this applicant has managed to obtain incentive advance for acquiring M.Com and M.Ed degree. So far as M.Com. is concerned it is a P.G. Degree which is the minimum requirement for a P.G. teacher. 4. The Vocational Stream wasintroduced for the first time in Higher Secondary course in the year 1978, even though vocational instructors were also appointed for taking classes for +2 students in view of the non-availability of students with P.G. degree. So far as M.Com. is concerned it is a P.G. Degree which is the minimum requirement for a P.G. teacher. 4. The Vocational Stream wasintroduced for the first time in Higher Secondary course in the year 1978, even though vocational instructors were also appointed for taking classes for +2 students in view of the non-availability of students with P.G. degree. The persons possessing a minimum qualification of B.Com were made eligible to be appointed to the post of Vocational Instructors. While other P.G. teachers are required to possess a P.G. Degree, a bare degree is made enough for being appointed as a P.G. teacher in Accountancy and Auditing. It is how persons like the applicants happened to get the post of craft teachers. So far as the craft teachers in the higher secondary system is concerned another G.O. is passed granting another incentive advance. Even as per the other G.Os. the applicant is not entitled for grant of incentive advance for acquiring M.Com degree. He is not entitled for any increment for the M.Ed. degree because no G.O. is so far passed granting incentive advance for vocational instructors who have passed the M.Ed. degree.” 4. We have heard Mr. R. Saravana Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rajasekar, Addl. Government Pleader, for the Respondents. We have also perused various Government Orders whereunder the Government had authorized payment of incentive increment on acquisition of higher qualification. 5. As per G.O.Ms.No.42 dated 1. 1969, incentive increment was payable to Secondary Grade teachers who acquired higher qualification. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18. 1986 was issued, whereunder it was directed: “2. The Government accept the recommendations of the One man Committee and issue the following orders:- i) The P.G. teachers and Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools who possess or acquire Post Graduate qualification in education ie. M.Ed., Degree shall be granted two advance increments in the scales of pay admissible to them. ii) The increment now sanctioned shall be granted in addition to their normal annual increments." (Emphasis added) 6. Thereafter, as per G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 20.12.1993, the Government issued further direction to the effect:- “4. The Government accept the request of the Director of School Education and issue the following: (i) The Post-Graduate Teachers who possess higher qualification like M.Phil.,/Ph.D.,P.G. Diploma in Teaching English shall be granted one incentive increment (i.e.,) two advance increments. Thereafter, as per G.O.Ms.No.1170 dated 20.12.1993, the Government issued further direction to the effect:- “4. The Government accept the request of the Director of School Education and issue the following: (i) The Post-Graduate Teachers who possess higher qualification like M.Phil.,/Ph.D.,P.G. Diploma in Teaching English shall be granted one incentive increment (i.e.,) two advance increments. (ii) This incentive increment shall be given only to those who possess the said higher qualification as on 01.03.93 and this concession will not be extended in future." (Emphasis added) 7. It appears that the Tribunal has negatived the contention of the petitioner mainly on account of the fact that, as a P.G. Teacher, the concerned person was expected to possess Post Graduate degree in the subject as well as a degree in education. 8. Even though ordinarily the expression “Post Graduate teacher” would mean a teacher possessing Post Graduate degree, it has to be considered that, for the subject concerned, the prescribed qualification was graduation. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner had acquired higher qualification such as M.Com., cannot be lost sight of. That apart, the petitioner had also acquired the degree of M.Phil., and M.Ed. The fact that a graduate was eligible to be vocational teacher was irrelevant for considering the applicability of the relevant G.Os. 9. Having regard to various Government Orders issued from time to time, we have no doubt in our mind that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. As a matter of fact, we find that all the relevant G.Os. have been analysed by a Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No.529 of 2007 (R. PREMAKUMARI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 3 OTHERS), disposed of on 15. 2008. Considering the various G.Os issued from time to time, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to incentive increments. There would be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.