Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is an association of Higher Secondary School Headmasters, represented by its Legal Secretary. Admittedly, the petitioner/Association is not a registered association, but they have come forward to file the present writ petition on the ground that it was registered in the year 1989 with Registration No.194 of 1989 and it has also got government recognition. However, the counsel for the petitioner is unable to produce any valid existing registration standing as on date. 2. The fact that a particular Service Association is recognised by the Government may be a relevant factor in moving the Administrative Tribunal, because the Administrative Tribunal Rules provide locus standi for such an association, but however this Court and Supreme Court has consistently held that unless a body is registered, it cannot maintain a writ petition in the name of the said unregistered body. Notwithstanding the technicalities, this Court is inclined to examine the grievance projected by the petitioner/association, since the petitioner/association has given the names of as many as 891 persons as its members. 3. In the present writ petition, the challenge is made to G.O.Ms.No.283, School Education Department, dated 28.11.2007. By the said government order, the State Government while considering the grant of advance increment for the Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools, decided to grant first incentive increment for the acquisition of qualification with M.Ed. Degree. With reference to the acquisition of other qualification, the second incentive increment was permitted to be given only from the date of the government order, namely on 28.11.2007. 4. The contention of the petitioner/association was that the said government order is illegal, as the policy of the Government was to grant four advance incentive increments for teachers for acquiring higher qualification and therefore, the Government in the matter of Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools cannot adopt different yardstick. The Government of Tamil Nadu has granted advance increment for Higher Secondary School Headmasters for M.Phil. Degree, but however passed the present government order long after the grant of incentive. The Government should have treated the Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools equally along with other teachers and should have granted advance increments from the date following the last date of the examination. The present government order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Government should have treated the Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools equally along with other teachers and should have granted advance increments from the date following the last date of the examination. The present government order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Supreme Court while dealing with a similar contention of discrimination between two classes of government servants on the question of advance increments being granted for acquiring higher qualification, in its decision reported in [2002] 10 SCC 658 in the case of H.P.Gupta and another v. Union of India and others, in paragraph [5] had observed as follows: "5. We find that the object of giving two advance increments to those officials who did not possess degree in Engineering before joining the service, is only to encourage them to get such a degree so that they could improve themselves while in service. When that object is satisfied, we do not think the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants that there should be equality in the matter of payment of salary or other emoluments or even there should be parity in the matter of giving increments, cannot be accepted. It is true that in such a situation, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, certain anomalies may arise in specific cases when the official who has acquired degree in Engineering subsequent to joining of service may get higher salary though junior to the appellants. There cannot be perfect equality in any matter on an absolute scientific basis and there may be certain inequities here and there. If the classification is correct and serves a particular purpose, the same is not to be judicially interfered with. If the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is accepted then the Scheme itself will become ineffective though it may result in giving uniform treatment to all. Thus the incentive scheme will stand scraped and such an event should be avoided. In this view of the matter, we decline to interfere with this order made by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." 6. This Court does not think that there is any discrimination made against the Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools. Thus the incentive scheme will stand scraped and such an event should be avoided. In this view of the matter, we decline to interfere with this order made by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." 6. This Court does not think that there is any discrimination made against the Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools. The State Government before passing the government order had obtained the opinion of the Director of School Education and accepting his opinion took a policy decision for grant of four advance increments and it has also decided that a teacher who was working as P.G. Teacher and had obtained a qualification of M.Ed. and if he was getting one incentive increment and if he is further promoted as an Headmaster of an Higher Secondary School, he will be given the second incentive increment from the date of the government order only. 7. As to from which date a particular benefit should be given is entirely coming within the policy realm of the State Government and the members of the petitioner/Association merely because they have acquired higher qualifications, without there being any corresponding obligation on the part of the State to reward the same, cannot file a writ petition seeking for such rewards. It is not their case that in the existing terms and conditions of service there is any discrimination shown by the State Government. 8. The present claim is only for an advance incentive increment from the date of acquisition of such higher qualification. Whether such an higher qualification acquired is relevant for the teaching work or not, and from which period such increments should be given and in what proportion it should be given is for the State Government to decide. Neither the petitioner/association nor its members have any vested right to claim advance increments merely because they have acquired higher academic qualification. The grant of such increments was with a view to make the teachers get higher qualifications, so that such higher qualification and the knowledge acquired for it would be of assistance to their teaching standards. Therefore, the scheme of grant of incentive increment is entirely an invention by the State to reward the teachers. The grant of such increments was with a view to make the teachers get higher qualifications, so that such higher qualification and the knowledge acquired for it would be of assistance to their teaching standards. Therefore, the scheme of grant of incentive increment is entirely an invention by the State to reward the teachers. In the matter of such rewards, it is entirely for the State to frame its policy and this Court does not consider that any discrimination has been made only because the second increment was to be given only to qualified teachers only from the date of the government order. In view of the above, there is no case made. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.